How old is the earth?

Originally posted by Don:
The problem with the Paluxy River tracks is that no credible scientist has examined them.

Unless someone can show some actual proof otherwise, Dr. Don Patton and Dr. Carl Baugh do not have real doctorates in anything--only honorary ones. And that being the case, they're no more qualified than Bill Clinton is.

I believe there are tracks in the Paluxy River that NEED to be investigated thoroughly; the next question is, why aren't the evolutionists looking at them?

Click to expand...

I agree. My faith does not rest on the Paluxy River tracks. If we want to see Dinosaurs (dragons) and men together we can simply read Job 40 and Job 42. Do a word search in our Bible on dragons. Then for secondary evidence, look at ancient art, myths, and legends. A better wording to your question would be, "Why are the evolutionists so hell-bent on discrediting the Bro. Patton and Bro Baugh?" Yes why aren't they looking at the tracks? I wonder.

Lacy

PS. There is propaganda on each side in a war. Be careful what you read!

The earth is probably closer to eight than six thousand years old, as is the universe itself. The six thousand years comes from the Masoretic texts, which is what all our current Bibles (including KJV) are translated from. However there was a dropping of a number of the hundred ciphers in the Masoretic which the most ancient of the Septuagints (Alexandrian) has. It is this Septuagint which was available to Christ and His disciples and the version which matches the quotes they use when referring to Scripture. This chart may help:
http://www.setterfield.org/scriptchron.htm#tabletwo

Regarding the gap theory, it is not viable. There was no 're-creation'. In the Hebrew grammar, that option is not available between verses one and two of Genesis 1. The implication according to the text, and according to Hebrew scholars is that, given the full implied meaning, the text would read something like, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth, it was shapeless and without any internal organization..." In other words, the transition from verse one to verse two is a narrowing of focus, not a gap of time.

I agree that the Paluxy River tracks are not good evidence. It is not that the men involved do not have degrees -- that really is not going to guarantee either honesty or skill. It is that they tend toward the sensationalistic. It is also that they have NEVER submitted any article to any of the creationist peer reviewed journals so that the tracks and the evidence could be more thoroughly examined in light of all available scholarship.

The meaning of Genesis, as it is written, is that the earth and the cosmos were created in 6 24 hour days, about 8,000 years ago. This can be accepted or rejected, but it should be accepted or rejected on its own terms and not on terms thrust upon it by those trying to combine evolution with the Bible. The two simply do not mix in any way, shape, or form. For those who try to combine them, and for those who are interested in this trick, please note that when these two different approaches are jam fitted together, it is ALWAYS the Bible which is 'reinterpreted' and never the science of man.

However the science of man has a history of changing and reversing on a rather consistent basis! Some call this 'self-correcting', and, to some extent, it is. But the Bible does not need to 'self-correct'. It stands, meaning intact, as it has stood for thousands of years.

The two major areas which seem to indicate an ancient cosmos and earth are light travel time and radiometric dating. These are actually the same 'problem', as every reduced radiometric decay rate equation has 'c' or the speed of light in the numerator. Thus, if the speed of light has ever been faster, so has radio decay, which means that the dating used in terms of both may be way off.

In Genesis 1:14, God told us to use orbital, or gravitational time as our time-keeper. Our years and days are determined by the motions of the earth itself, not by any atomic processes. Thus the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 are valid, as they are given in terms of orbital time -- years. However radiometric dating may not be valid in terms of years if the decay rate has not been constant. In other words, atomic time and orbital time may be running according to two different clocks altogether.

This has been my husband's field of research for the past 24 years. We have put up a website with his major papers and the discussions about this at www.setterfield.org

If you go into the research papers section, go for the summaries and the more recent papers first. They will help you understand before you wade into the more major papers. However the data regarding the changing speed of light and the measurements of this are in the first paper listed. This is the 1987 Report done, on request, for Stanford Research Institute International.

The upshot of Barry's work is that it is, indeed, a very young universe and earth, just as the Word of God tells us it is.

I personally support the big bang theory. This theory claims that there was a giant mass of energy that simply exploded and expanded thus making the universe.

This claim actually does and can fit with God said...

God said let it happen and BANG! It happened. This theory which has many supporting details in the way the universe works and expnads fits perfectly with creation science. It is simply the how it happened to God's decree, "let it be." The big band theory has nothing truly to do with the theory of evolution except that they have tagged their concoction to this scientific theory of how the universe began.

You might be interested in this, regarding the Big Bang:
http://www.setterfield.org/AstronomicalDiscussion.htm#whataboutbb

Originally posted by Helen:
Regarding the gap theory, it is not viable. There was no 're-creation'. In the Hebrew grammar, that option is not available between verses one and two of Genesis 1.

The meaning of Genesis, as it is written, is that the earth and the cosmos were created in 6 24 hour days, about 8,000 years ago. This can be accepted or rejected, but it should be accepted or rejected on its own terms and not on terms thrust upon it by those trying to combine evolution with the Bible. The two simply do not mix in any way, shape, or form. For those who try to combine them, and for those who are interested in this trick, please note that when these two different approaches are jam fitted together, it is ALWAYS the Bible which is 'reinterpreted' and never the science of man.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mean to imply that I am trying to "combine evolution with the Bible". I never said that I believed in Darwinian evolution at all. (I show Kent Hovind videos at our church!) I also never implied that there was a "gap" between verses one and two of Genesis. I don't believe in millions (much less billions) of years.
However there have been Bible scholars that believed in a pre-adamic world since before there ever was any "theory of evolution", simply because of the Bible difficulties I mentioned.
My (Masoratic) KJV says "Replenish". Go to the "original greek" if you must...see my opinion here:

http://www.harvestbaptistofmidland.org/home/default.cfm?nav_id=38&par_nav_id=1&content_id=&article_id=179&layout=Default&Link_URL=content.cfm

How long did the pre-Adamic world last? Who knows? What was there? Other than Lucifer and a "garden", I have no idea. How was it destroyed? 2 Pet 3:5-7 says a flood and Genesis 1:2-6 implies that it was on a cosmic level. Does the "gap theory" explain the geological layers? NO, not necessarily! Noah's flood will suffice for most.

However,see:

http://www.kjvbible.org/sediment.html

This form of debate is very limited because it is easy to read un-intended emotion into these posts. I have read many of your posts and you are generally very sweet and careful so I assume you just saw "gap theory" and maybe painted me with that same brush.

Lacy

[ September 13, 2003, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Lacy Evans ]

Lacy, replenish is just another example of a poorly translated word found in the KJV.

Note that Christ said that Adam and Eve were the beginning.

That rules out the pre-adamic race entirely.

Originally posted by Gunther:
Lacy, replenish is just another example of a poorly translated word found in the KJV.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

But I suggest you first get to know the men you have just entered into "debate" with.

http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/translators/

Lacy

I post regularly on this "Fundamental" board because I assume I'll not have to chase folks into the dark shadows of "the original" texts. Gunther do you speak Greek or Hebrew? Have you ever seen an "original"? How are you so certain it is a mistranslation? Is it a "mistranslation" in Gen 9:1? Who is the authority? You? The back of your Strong's? Or the Word? "Well my pastor's cemetary professor says it's an unhappy translation..." Don't get me started!

Lacy

http://www.harvestbaptistofmidland.org/home/default.cfm?nav_id=38&par_nav_id=1&content_id=&article_id=179&layout=Default&Link_URL=content.cfm

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
1. Prove it.

2. But I suggest you first get to know the men you have just entered into "debate" with.

3. I post regularly on this "Fundamental" board because I assume I'll not have to chase folks into the dark shadows of "the original" texts.

4. Gunther do you speak Greek or Hebrew? Have you ever seen an "original"?

5. How are you so certain it is a mistranslation?

6. Is it a "mistranslation" in Gen 9:1?

7. Who is the authority?

8. You?

9. The back of your Strong's?

10. Or the Word?

11. "Well my pastor's cemetary professor says it's an unhappy translation..."

12. Don't get me started!

Click to expand...

1. No problem. This is easier than 2+2=4.

"replenish" in the KJV -

transliterated word - Male'

phonetic spelling - maw-lay'

Definitions:

(Qal)
to be full, fulness, abundance (participle), to be full, be accomplished, be ended, to consecrate, fill the hand

(Niphal)
to be filled, be armed, be satisfied
to be accomplished, be ended

(Piel)
to fill
to satisfy
to fulfil, accomplish, complete
to confirm

(Pual) to be filled

(Hithpael) to mass themselves against

Number of times used in God's word and the ways it is translated:

250

accomplished 1, aloud 1, armed 1, become full 1, been completed 1, come 1, complete 3, completed 9, completion 1, confirm 1, consecrate* 3, consecrated* 4, covered 1, dedicate 1, drenched 1, drew 1, ended 1, endowed 1, expired 1, fill 38, filled 78, filling 5, fills 1, finished 1, fulfill 6, fulfilled 10, full 37, fullness 1, fully 8, gave in full 1, given fully 1, gratified 1, live 1, massed 1, messengers 1, mount* 1, mounted 1, ordain* 4, ordained* 4, ordination* 1, overflowing* 1, overflows* 1, passed 1, presume* 1, refresh 1, required 2, satisfied 1, satisfy 2, set 1, settings 2, space 1

2. Invite them here. Don't cut and paste. Are they God?

3. We have a forum for the version discussion. Feel free to come there.

4. I don't speak either of those languages. I do know a bit of them. As far as the originals go, I have no more seen them than the KJV translators saw them. Btw, the Hebrew text is rarely discussed. I think everyone recognizes the Masoretic text as the best.

5. Look at the definitions. When you find "replenish", you might have an argument.

6. Yes, for the same reason.

7. God is.

8. No, God is.

9. No, God is.

10. God is, completely represented by his word, which is inerrant and perfect in every way.

11. I don't bow to any professor.

12. On what? Basically you have fallen into the same trap as alot of radical KJVOs have, namely into the preadamic race theory.

Perhaps you could tell me why Paul said that sin entered through Adam and then death because of sin.

If there was another race, that died before Adam, then Paul was a liar.

Enjoy.

Originally posted by Gunther:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Click to expand...

1. No problem. This is easier than 2+2=4.

2. Invite them here. Don't cut and paste. Are they God?

3. We have a forum for the version discussion. Feel free to come there.

4. I don't speak either of those languages. I do know a bit of them. As far as the originals go, I have no more seen them than the KJV translators saw them. Btw, the Hebrew text is rarely discussed. I think everyone recognizes the Masoretic text as the best.

5. Look at the definitions. When you find "replenish", you might have an argument.

6. Yes, for the same reason.

7. God is.

8. No, God is.

9. No, God is.

10. God is, completely represented by his word, which is inerrant and perfect in every way.

11. I don't bow to any professor.

12. On what? Basically you have fallen into the same trap as alot of radical KJVOs have, namely into the preadamic race theory.

13. Perhaps you could tell me why Paul said that sin entered through Adam and then death because of sin. If there was another race, that died before Adam, then Paul was a liar.

Enjoy. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]1) Who picks the definition? You again?

2) They are quite dead (For over 300 years)and more scholarly than any K-Mart Greek or Hebrew dictionary we will ever see. They are not God but neither was anyone who penned an autograph.

3) You brought it up.
When something doesn't agree with your pre-concieved notions you fall into the same trap as all of the radical non-KJVO's and run to a Hebrew/Greek dictionary so YOU can decide what the correct translation should be.

4) My point exactly. Where is the Holy Ghost in your doctrine of preservation by degeneretion. BTW Thanks for the tip on what "everyone" recognizes.

5) It is not my place to argue. The Bible says "replenish".

6) So Noah wasn't supposed to RE-plenish the earth? Just fill it up for the first time?

7) How do you know? (Don't say the Bible says, because it might be a "mis-translation" in someone's greek dictionary.)

8) Same as 7.

9) Same as 7.

10) Where is "His Word"? Do you have a copy?

11) I bow to the Word of God and it says "Replenish"

12) I said nothing about any "Pre-Adamic" race.

13) That's as easy as 2+2=4. Paul was talking about MEN! I suppose you believe that Lucifer fell because of Adam's sin? Or perhaps the wages of Satan's rebellion was something less than death. That's not the way I read it.

Lacy

PS I am enjoying this. I hope I don't come off as hateful or smart-alek. I consider you a brother in Christ.

Lacy, as much as I enjoy this stuff also, I will bow out of this discussion only because there is a specific forum for this.

I would recommend starting a thread on "replenish" vs "fill" in that forum.

I do want to point out that the Scriptures do not say WHEN satan fell. They just say he did.

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Artimaeus:
... a young earth is the only thing a Bible believing Christian can reasonably believe.

Click to expand...

I'm a devout Bible believing Christian. I believe the Earth is probably 4 1/2 billion years old. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't doubt your devotion, John, nor your sincerity, it is your REASONABLENESS that I question.

I'm a devout Bible believing Christian. I believe the Earth is probably 4 1/2 billion years old.

Click to expand...

Think of Jesus first miracle.

How old was this wine the moment He created it?

What would it have taken in terms of time to naturally produce this wine?

There are implications that it was old and mellow wine. Even at that it should have taken at least a season and a half to produce it. What would have been the scientific analysis of the age of this wine? Logically what was the age of this wine being "best"?

probably at least 5 years old.

The implications and evidences (no matter how compelling) that the earth is probably at least 4 1/2 billion years old are not necessarily so.

HankD

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
... a young earth is the only thing a Bible believing Christian can reasonably believe.

Click to expand...

I take offense at your comment. I'm a Bible Believing Christian (and certainly reasonable ) and the Bible tells me that a Young Earth is NOT reasonable. A Young WORLD, yes indeed! But a Young Earth, not according to the Bible.

I have REASONABLY addressed all the arguments that support the "Gap Theory" using the Bible on my website. If you can show me one passage from the Bible that disproves what I have written (which I have not already addressed) then I'm willing to discuss it here.

I know that this subject is an emotional argument, and that there are good and faithful Christians on both sides of it, but since God is the Author of BOTH the Word and the Earth's geology (and what it reveals) I seriously think we need to put zeal and tradition aside and deal with Scriptural facts, and accept them. Do you REALLY believe the Bible is infallible? I do! Gap FACTS

male or mala is used 253 times in the Old Testament. It is a root word whose primary meaning is "to fill."

Here are the Genesis 1 applications which would deny its translation of 'replenish'

1:21-22 -- So God created the great creatures of the sea and every oiving and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

Note: the word translated 'created' here is 'bara', which is a verb used only in connection with God's activities in the Scriptures and, when used in contradistinction to other verbs of similar meaning (in this case, 'asah', meaning 'to form or make'), means 'to create from nothing.' Therefore these fish and birds, which were original creations, could not have been told to 'replenish' the seas and the skies, but were rather told to increase and fill them.

Genesis 1:27-28 -- So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Note: interestingly, this is the third and last time 'bara' is used in creation week. (The first was in verse 1). Man was created uniquely, in the image of God. The exact same directions were given to him (man) as to the fish and birds -- to multiply and fill. The use of the word 'replenish' here is not allowed by the text, either in the English or in the Hebrew.

Now, about Satan. Anyone who thinks he fell before Eden is not reading their Bible very thoroughly. In Ezekiel God is speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, through the King of Tyre (whom Ezekiel is addressing) to someone else altogether. Look at these words:

You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings wre made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

It appears that Lucifer/Satan was created guardian cherub of Eden! This would explain, certainly, why Eve was so willing to listen to him. She trusted him. This also indicates VERY strongly that Satan fell only a short time before tempting Eve -- certainly after creation week.

Lacy, the gap theory is one used by evolutionists and those trying to reconcile with evolutionists. You may not like that, but it is true. It accepts the evolutionary delineations of ages of rocks and stars and such and then tries to smash them into Bible by separating verses 1 and 2 with an enormous span of years. Where are those years in the geological record? They simply are not there.

I would also STRONGLY advise AGAINST using anything produced by Hovind. He is a charismatic (personally, not religiously) popularizer who combines his own opinions with unverified facts and verified facts in such a way that the normal layman cannot tell one from another and so accepts it all as fact. This is deceitful on his part and just about all of us in creation science wish someone would muffle and/or educate the guy so that he would not spread so much false information. God has left us plenty of real evidence of a very young cosmos and earth without having to manufacture any or present unverified material, such as the Paluxy tracks, as though it were unquestioned.

There is no gap in the Bible story of creation. The cosmos and earth are only thousands of years old, and the Bible may be read in a straightforward manner for the truth.

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Artimaeus:
... a young earth is the only thing a Bible believing Christian can reasonably believe.

Click to expand...

I'm a devout Bible believing Christian. I believe the Earth is probably 4 1/2 billion years old. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't doubt your devotion, John, nor your sincerity, it is your REASONABLENESS that I question. </font>[/QUOTE]Oddly enough, I have always found JohnV to be one of the most reasonable people on this board - perhaps because he uses facts to back up his arguments instead of being hyper-fundamentalist and implying that his views are right and all others are undeniably wrong, as many here seem to do.

Digger, regarding the use of the word 'generations', that is exactly what is meant. It is a much more general word in the Hebrew and does not necessarily mean ancestor/descendants. It can mean all those alive at a certain time, or even a certain class of people, regardless of the time they lived.

In the case of Genesis, there is very strong evidence that it is not something Moses wrote, but that he edited. As a man named Wiseman discovered in the 1930's regarding archaeological evidence from the most ancient civilizations found in the Middle East, the common way for an author to 'sign off' his material was not, as was done later, at the beginning (Title, author, text to follow), but at the end (Text, title, author). Considering Genesis to be the oldest of material available to us, we are suddenly aware that it fits this pattern, and therefore might well be a series of eyewitness accounts, passed down in writing through the ages. In writing? Yes. Look at Genesis 5:1 -- in the NIV it translates "This is the written account of Adam's line." In the KJV it reads, "This is the book of the generations of Adam." Every translation indicates, in some way, that this was a written account. Adam's account. He appears to have been the author, the eyewitness author, of Genesis 2:4b to 5:1a. There is a good presentation of this material by Curt Sewell here:
http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

There was no gap.

The four major divisions in the geological record -- Archaeozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic -- were punctuated and separated by the three major catastrophes mentioned in the Bible: the Flood, Babel, and the days of Peleg. This might explain more:
http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html

This is backed up by data. And the geological data supports exactly what the Bible tells us happened. It is not a matter of theory first. Barry came at this data first. He started out as an old-ager, but it was the data itself which caused him to rethink his position and begin to understand that the Bible is absolutely correct: it is a very young creation.

How old is the earth?

Definitely less than 10 billion years old and more than 6,000 years old. My mind is absolutely made up on that!

Somewhere around 6000 years. I've yet to see an argument for anything bigger that fits Biblical record.


Sorry gapists...

The earth is as old as God said it is, and He was rather silent on that. I, therefore, will leave all speculation on age up to others, and be content to believe that God is the Creator and I am the creation, and I was created to honour and magnify His holy name.

Cheers,

Jim

Why Romans 5:12 proves a recreation.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
(Romans 5:12 KJV)

That verse is absolutely true, in context. Death entered this world (our world) when Adam sinned, about 6000 years ago, and Adam was the first man who sinned. But if you don't understand the BIBLICAL differences between the words "world" and "earth," you cannot grasp the truth of the following points of logic and common sense:


1) The Scriptures say that the "serpent" tempted Eve and caused her and Adam to sin.
2) If the serpent tempted the man and woman to sin against God, then the serpent was disobedient and evil before Adam and Eve.
3) And if the "serpent" was evil before Adam fell, then the spirit of the serpent would have had to have sinned against God at some point of time BEFORE Adam sinned. Got that?
4) Therefore, if Death comes by sin (see Romans 6:23 and James 1:15 [an eternal rule]), and the serpent was a sinner before Adam, then Death already existed in a "world" BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned. It was Adam's disobedience which allowed "Death" to enter the newly-formed pristine world. It was Lucifer's disobedience and rebellion which allowed "Death" to enter the original, ancient world. That is what the Bible says. If you don't get this point clear in your mind, it is not possible to understand the full Scriptural picture.
Common Sense Conclusions:



1) Adam may have been the first man to sin, but he was NOT the first living creature to sin.
2) Death entered into the world when Adam sinned but death already existed at a point in time BEFORE Adam sinned, in a world on the face of the earth BEFORE Adam.

This was "cut and pasted" from an article at http://www.kjvbible.org/. I thought it was interesting
Lacy