How old is the earth?

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
A few points I wish to elaborate on in the above are as follows:
#1 This was created as a safe haven for those who accept the bible as it is written. I cannot understand how the 6 day creation account can be cast out and someone still claim to accept the word as written.
#2 Posters are admonished not to post in a fashion that casts doubt on the validity of scripture, and to deny the literal 6 days definately does so.
#3 posters who may hold a more liberal view are not excluded from posting here but while here they must adhere to this forums guidelines. They don't have to change their beliefs but they must post as if they believe the bible word for word while here. There is a large board out there where for the most part anything goes (doctrinally speaking) but not here.
#4 As you read the rest of the guidelines you will immediately notice that they state that creation will not be argued here. Why does anyone who reads this admonition feel that it is o.k. to disregard it.
#5 Notice that the guidelines state that not everyone here is a fundamentalist so there is no gain from posters stating that their view is a fundamentally held belief by this group or that.
Murph

Those who hold to a re-creation believe that the earth was created in 6 literal days. It was a re-creation. We have many scriptural reasons for this belief. Word-digger, as far as I can tell, does not hold to the "day age theory" or any other theory that makes provision for evolution. His (or my) views in now way whatsoever violate one of these guidelines. This appears as close-mindedness (at best) or just plain bullying (at worst) on your part. If you were really so secure in your "fundamentalism", you might not be so resistant to testing to see if it bears scrutiny.

Here is a more honest thread starter for you. Start it and see how the "free exchange of ideas" goes.

How old is the earth? [Warning: anyone who says anything other than 6000 years will be ridiculed, branded a heretic, and bullied off of this board.]

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Gunther]

I don't know what the big deal is. C.S. Murphy isn't a moderator, so his opinion is just that.

Btw, I stand on 6 24 hour day creation. Recreation is indefensible, both scientifically and scripturally. It is usually the radical KJVOs that actually believe it.

 

[doug_mmm]

All,

Thanks to all who posted in regards to my original post when I raised issues re: asteroids, lunar impacting, volcanoes.

Helen, Thank you in particular for your consciencious research. I like the way you presented your case regarding lunar and earth impacting. Respectfully Helen I don’t agree with your conclusions but your premises are fair and your conclusion drawn upon them reasonable. I appreciate your replies and the way your researched and marshalled your evidence to present a case. It’s been a pleasure to read your work. Well done for that at least. Thank you. I think your one smart Lady. Good on you. Look forward to reading your posts in the future.

I also agree with you re ‘Dr’ Kent Hovind. Muzzle please. He’s the best recruitment officer Satan could ever hope for. As for his Patriot University, appalling …simple appalling ….a degree mill…..

My understanding is that this type of lunacy doesn’t stop here. Now reserve judgement on this I could be wrong but I believe Dr Henry Morris once described lunar and martian imact creators as resulting from a celestial battle between good and bad angels……..as I said reserve judgment on that one but I believe it to be true. As Reagen said “trust but verify”.

All,
Keep up the good work, it’s great to have a good discussion on this without the discussion degenerating into farce.

Re: the earth and universe being 6K old, -

1) The Universe is billions of light years old. The andromeda galaxy is 2.2 million light years away, we know this from cepheid variable stars acting as yardsticks. Yes I know the phrase in the bible ‘God stretched forth the heavens’ but surely it’s a long shot from that phrase to stretching the fabric of space and time in a cosmological sense ? Surely its not unreasonable for us to look at the evidence and say well the Universe can’t be 6K old because by all evidence available it doesn’t look that way.
Yeah God expects faith but he has also given us brains to examine the evidence. Dr Russell Humphries has proposed a cosmology to reconcile the ages and even he says the age is relative ie the earth is approx 6K old but whose time…ie the time is different in different places in the universe dependent on how the fabric of the space time continuum is affected. Heavy stuff and this is not the place to dive into it.

2) The fossil record shows no evidence of eg dinosaurs and elephants being in the same strata. If all these creatures died in the flood or in the last 6K years then we’d expect dinosaurs and currently living creature to be fossilized together in the same strata. We don’t see this.

Any comments anyone ?
Best wishes
Doug_mmm

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
Murph, I don't think Genesis is that specific on details. Yes, I believe Genesis. It says that in the beginning God..I buy that lock, stock and barrel. I just can't get excited whether it took 7 literal days or the other definition of biblical days...one day as a thousand years, and I don't think that really matters.


Jim

But Jim the Bible says 6 literal days, why can't you accept that?
Murph

 

[word_digger]

Those who hold to a re-creation believe that the earth was created in 6 literal days. It was a re-creation. We have many scriptural reasons for this belief. Word-digger, as far as I can tell, does not hold to the "day age theory" or any other theory that makes provision for evolution. His (or my) views in now way whatsoever violate one of these guidelines. This appears as close-mindedness (at best) or just plain bullying (at worst) on your part. If you were really so secure in your "fundamentalism", you might not be so resistant to testing to see if it bears scrutiny.

Lacy, your last sentence hits the nail on the head. It is only human nature for people to fear and hate anything that threatens their safety or comfort zone. We have an expression back in West Virginia that when you toss a rock into a pack of dogs the one that yelps the most is the one you hit. Now, I'm not calling Murphy a dog, but he sure is doing a lot of yelping. If he was really secure in his position he would not be defending it so aggressively.

What I really find interesting is that, on the one hand, folks like Murphy and Helen will demonize the scientific method because it challenges their particular interpretation of Genesis, while on the other hand they will cite myths and legends as being more credible sources of support for their interpretation. It only proves the point that people who hold irrational positions will resort to irrational means to defend it, if necessary.

In the case of this forum it is akin to this: Play my way or get out of my sandbox. My personal experiences with sandboxes is that while playing in sandboxes one usually finds something nasty buried there by a cat.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Gunther:
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.

Gunther,

You are wrong in your assertion that "replenish" is a mistranslation.

You are assuming that that the "re" in "replenish" means to "do over again" when, in fact, it does not. The primary meaning of the word "replenish" is exactly what you said the Hebrew word means in your other post - "to fill." I quote from Webster's Collegiate dictionary:

"1. a: to fill with persons or animals; STOCK b archaic: to supply fully: PERFECT"

Mark Osgatharp

[ September 25, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Mark Osgatharp ]

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

I'm sure these points have probably been made already, but I haven't been following this topic and didn't feel like reading ten pages so I will give my four cents worth here:

1. There can be no doubt, based on the genealogies of Genesis, that the time calculated from Adam to now is approximately 6000 years.

2. There can be no doubt that the creation week, which culminated in the creation of Adam and Eve, was "the beginning of the creation" for those are the exact words used by Christ in Mark's gospel when He was answering the Pharisee's questions about divorce.

3. There can be no doubt that the whole creation was created in that first week, for Moses said,

"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day."

4. Therefore all who assert that the creation - one iota of it - is any older than the time that elapsed between the creation week and the present does so in the face of Moses and Christ.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
I'm sure these points have probably been made already, but I haven't been following this topic and didn't feel like reading ten pages so I will give my four cents worth here:

1. There can be no doubt, based on the genealogies of Genesis, that the time calculated from Adam to now is approximately 6000 years.

Mark Osgatharp

I'm just going to address one of these points: Of course there is plenty to doubt, not because the genealogies are inherently faulty in any way; but because our face-value understanding of their meanings & purposes are skewed by our own modern preconceptions.

The classic demonstration of gaps in the genealogies is from Princeton Seminary's William T. Green, written in 1890. He had no axe to grind with the Bible; he was simply writing a factual, scholarly paper.

In 1948, Byron Nelson published "Before Abraham", a defense of creationism that also provided proof of genealogical gaps. A simple study of the genealogies of apparent grandfather/father/son lineages that should span the known 400 year captivity of the Isrealites irrefutably demonstrates gaps in the genealogies; but only because we ignorantly insist on viewing them through the scope of 21st century civilization, and not their intent/purpose as written. The Bible is correct. It's our faulty/skewed viewing of the genealogies that results in Ussher's now thoroughly discredited timeline. (Some are willfully blinded to the truth however & refuse to give it up.)

A simple example of a compressed genealogy in the New Testament is Matthew 1:1. If this verse were all that we had to base Christ's lineage upon, we would believe David to be his father, and Abraham his grandfather. Of course, numerous other Gospel passages prove that understanding absolutely incorrect.

The same gaps can be demonstrated in the genealogies of the patriarchs, with Biblical evidence.

 

[LarryN]

Sorry for two in a row, but I have to comment on the statements up this page a bit that seem to imply that it is somehow anti-fundamentalist to not believe in a very young earth:

The term "fundamentalism" was, as we all know, coined as a result of a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915 entitled "The Fundamentals". The prevailing worldview contained in "The Fundamentals" is that of Theistic evolution! (James Orr and others who touched on the issue of creation had been somewhat swayed by Darwin's theory, and it clearly shows through. Remember, this was still a decade or more before the Scopes Trial drew the line in the sand as far as Christians are concerned.)

Since I don't believe in Theistic evolution, I guess, by definition, that would make me "anti-fundamentalist"! (Along with any of you who don't believe it either!)

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by LarryN:
The classic demonstration of gaps in the genealogies is from Princeton Seminary's William T. Green, written in 1890. He had no axe to grind with the Bible; he was simply writing a factual, scholarly paper.

The truth of this statement is very doubtful. In 1890 the age of the earth was a live issue in intellectual and theological academia and any teacher at Princeton would have been fully aware of the controversial nature of the subject.

A simple example of a compressed genealogy in the New Testament is Matthew 1:1. If this verse were all that we had to base Christ's lineage upon, we would believe David to be his father, and Abraham his grandfather. Of course, numerous other Gospel passages prove that understanding absolutely incorrect.

The same gaps can be demonstrated in the genealogies of the patriarchs, with Biblical evidence.

This statement is absolutely true; there are, without question, "gaps" in the Biblical genealogies. However, this fact has no bearing on the time spans between persons as recorded in Genesis. The text states, for example,

"Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel: and Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died. And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years and begat Jared."

It makes not one atom of difference if Mahalaleel was Cainan's immediate son or great, great, great, great, great, great grandson; the statement of fact still remains that Cainan was 70 years old when Mahalaleel was born. Likewise, Mahalaleel was 65 years old when Jared was born.

Therefore, the number of years from the birth of Cainan to the birth of Jared was 135, no matter how many generations fell between the birth of the two men.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
The classic demonstration of gaps in the genealogies is from Princeton Seminary's William T. Green, written in 1890. He had no axe to grind with the Bible; he was simply writing a factual, scholarly paper.

The truth of this statement is very doubtful. In 1890 the age of the earth was a live issue in intellectual and theological academia and any teacher at Princeton would have been fully aware of the controversial nature of the subject.

A simple example of a compressed genealogy in the New Testament is Matthew 1:1. If this verse were all that we had to base Christ's lineage upon, we would believe David to be his father, and Abraham his grandfather. Of course, numerous other Gospel passages prove that understanding absolutely incorrect.

The same gaps can be demonstrated in the genealogies of the patriarchs, with Biblical evidence.

This statement is absolutely true; there are, without question, "gaps" in the Biblical genealogies. However, this fact has no bearing on the time spans between persons as recorded in Genesis. The text states, for example,

"Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel: and Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died. And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years and begat Jared."

It makes not one atom of difference if Mahalaleel was Cainan's immediate son or great, great, great, great, great, great grandson; the statement of fact still remains that Cainan was 70 years old when Mahalaleel was born. Likewise, Mahalaleel was 65 years old when Jared was born.

Therefore, the number of years from the birth of Cainan to the birth of Jared was 135, no matter how many generations fell between the birth of the two men.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark, you're willfully ignoring Biblical evidence in favor of what you've decided to believe.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by LarryN:
Mark, you're willfully ignoring Biblical evidence in favor of what you've decided to believe.

Larry,

I accepted everything you said about the Biblical evidence. Please explain to me how that can be construed as ignoring Biblical evidence.

I simply proved, from the exact words of the Bible, that the Biblical evidence you presented did not prove what you said it did. Rather than attacking my character why don't your refute what I wrote on a logical and Scriptural basis.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
The classic demonstration of gaps in the genealogies is from Princeton Seminary's William T. Green, written in 1890. He had no axe to grind with the Bible; he was simply writing a factual, scholarly paper.

The truth of this statement is very doubtful. In 1890 the age of the earth was a live issue in intellectual and theological academia and any teacher at Princeton would have been fully aware of the controversial nature of the subject.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark, I have a copy of it in my personal library; whether you believe that the publication exists or not is your choice.

It's available for your own perusal if you'd care to locate it somewhere for yourself.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
Mark, you're willfully ignoring Biblical evidence in favor of what you've decided to believe.

Larry,

I accepted everything you said about the Biblical evidence. Please explain to me how that can be construed as ignoring Biblical evidence.

I simply proved, from the exact words of the Bible, that the Biblical evidence you presented did not prove what you said it did. Rather than attacking my character why don't your refute what I wrote on a logical and Scriptural basis.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]My apologies if you felt it was a character attack. I meant nothing malicious. I guess I was just stung by what I took to be your attack on those who disagree with you:

"4. Therefore all who assert that the creation - one iota of it - is any older than the time that elapsed between the creation week and the present does so in the face of Moses and Christ."

(By the way, I guess I didn't appreciated your "The Truth of this statement is very doubtful" comment either. I guess that struck me as being called a liar. Now who was attacking character?)

I don't have a scanner to post the material I referenced, but it's voluminous. If you'd like to view it, it's available to find.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by LarryN:
(By the way, I guess I didn't appreciated your "The Truth of this statement is very doubtful" comment either. I guess that struck me as being called a liar. Now who was attacking character?)

LarryN,

I didn't mean to suggest that you lied about the matter. I meant to suggest that, however dispassionately and academically Mr. Green may have seemed to write, it is doubtful that he wrote from an unbiased position. In other words, I think he probably did have an "axe to grind." Maybe he didn't, but I doubt it.

I don't have a scanner to post the material I referenced, but it's voluminous. If you'd like to view it, it's available to find.

That won't be necessary because, as I have already acknowledged, it is obvious that the Biblical genealogies do have "gaps." It doesn't take a "voluminous" study to prove that simple fact.

But, again I say, it is equally as certain that whatever gaps there may be in the Genesis genealogies do not effect the time element in the slightest.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
(By the way, I guess I didn't appreciated your "The Truth of this statement is very doubtful" comment either. I guess that struck me as being called a liar. Now who was attacking character?)

LarryN,

I didn't mean to suggest that you lied about the matter. I meant to suggest that, however dispassionately and academically Mr. Green may have seemed to write, it is doubtful that he wrote from an unbiased position. In other words, I think he probably did have an "axe to grind." Maybe he didn't, but I doubt it.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark, you're a gracious man. The great thing about any differences in beliefs (that aren't fundamental to salvation) that believers have now is one day in glory they won't matter at all.

I grew up believing that the Earth was created around 6,000 years ago. In the decades since as I've studied in God's Word I've personally come to the conclusion that that's a mistaken interpretation of what the Bible says (or doesn't say) about the matter. You know, I just may be wrong!

If being doctrinally correct on everything was a prerequisite to salvation though, I think we as humans would be abjectly without hope. I know people who I genuinely believe are saved who are KJVO; and I know those who aren't. I know some on both sides who differ regarding the method of baptism, but of course it's not the proper method of baptism that saves us. Christians disagree on end-times timelines; but once again I don't believe that being pre-trib is required to be saved.

Someday I think every believer will find that at least one of their personal beliefs regarding doctrine was incorrect.

 

[word_digger]

Speaking of "GAPS"....

Are there other "gaps" in the Old Testament? You bet your booties. What about the "Church Age" gap in the Old Testament?

In the prophecies, and for that matter, anywhere else in OT, you will not find a direct reference to the Church Age. Only by what is written and revealed in the NT can we look and see where those "Gaps" are in the prophecies. The best known example is this passage in Daniel. I will show where those gaps [the Church age] are and number them:

Daniel 9:24-26 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, |church age is here (1)| and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: | church age is here (2)| the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: | church age is here (3)| and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

I believe that many of you can, through your Bible knowledge, discern why the Church Age goes in those particular places, so I won't bore you with a long commentary. The point I want to make is that there are, indeed, gaps in the Bible. The gap of the Church Age can only been seen in the OT through the knowledge of Jesus and the OT. To the unbelieving Jew, they are still blind to that 2000 year gap because it is only revealed through the Spirit.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
(By the way, I guess I didn't appreciated your "The Truth of this statement is very doubtful" comment either. I guess that struck me as being called a liar. Now who was attacking character?)

LarryN,

I didn't mean to suggest that you lied about the matter. I meant to suggest that, however dispassionately and academically Mr. Green may have seemed to write, it is doubtful that he wrote from an unbiased position. In other words, I think he probably did have an "axe to grind." Maybe he didn't, but I doubt it.

I don't have a scanner to post the material I referenced, but it's voluminous. If you'd like to view it, it's available to find.

But, again I say, it is equally as certain that whatever gaps there may be in the Genesis genealogies do not effect the time element in the slightest.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark, thanks for the discussion today. The passage in the Bible I've previously alluded to about genealogies spanning the captivity will provide you with an example. Unfortunately I'm away from home, and my Bible is back in the hotel, so I've fuzzy on some of the names, but here goes:

The lineage of Moses is given in certain passages as Moses' grandfather/Moses' father/Moses. Lifespans are mentioned; just as with the patriarchs in Genesis. The man clearly identified as the grandfather is explicitly stated to have entered Egypt at the start of the captivity. His lifespan is duly noted. The man clearly identified as Moses' father also has his lifespan given. Moses, as we know, left Egypt at the end of the captivity, and lived a certain number of years thereafter.

Since we are told that the man apparently clearly identified as the grandfather was alive at the start of captivity (even ifas a newborn); andwe
know that Moses left Egypt at the end of captivity (and no-one I know would dispute that the captivity lasted 400 years); then the lifespans of these three should exceed 400 years if added together. Yetevenif we make the untenable streach that there lifespans had NO overlap whatsoever (does a newborn have a baby- of course not, there has to be overlap): their lifespans together don't come close to spanning the 400 years!

Does this mean that we've found an error in the Bible? Obviously NO. It just means that the Bible followed in some places the then common custom of compressing genealogies without otherwise explantion. There are numerous examples (with years included) elsewhere in the O.T. where one person is said to have "begat" another; only for it to be apparent in another reference that there is at least one (or more) generation intervening. There is one such obvious where it turns out that a woman actually "begat" her great-granddaughter!

If the Bible clearly gives examples of gaps (with years/lifespans similarly detailed) in other places, why couldn't the same be true in Genesis?

Mind you, I'm not insisting it's the case, but my mind's not closed to the idea.


(please excuse the typos.)

 

[C.S. Murphy]

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

Lacy, your last sentence hits the nail on the head. It is only human nature for people to fear and hate anything that threatens their safety or comfort zone. We have an expression back in West Virginia that when you toss a rock into a pack of dogs the one that yelps the most is the one you hit. Now, I'm not calling Murphy a dog, but he sure is doing a lot of yelping. If he was really secure in his position he would not be defending it so aggressively.

What I really find interesting is that, on the one hand, folks like Murphy and Helen will demonize the scientific method because it challenges their particular interpretation of Genesis, while on the other hand they will cite myths and legends as being more credible sources of support for their interpretation. It only proves the point that people who hold irrational positions will resort to irrational means to defend it, if necessary.

In the case of this forum it is akin to this: Play my way or get out of my sandbox. My personal experiences with sandboxes is that while playing in sandboxes one usually finds something nasty buried there by a cat. </font>[/QUOTE]I must apologize to all who are reading the trash that has been posted in this thread. Had I not resigned my post as moderator here I assure you that the posts that deny the truth of Genesis and ignore the guidelines of this forum would be removed. Having said that I do want to comment about the sandbox analogy. #1 there are other sandboxes with lower standards of doctrine that many of those present in this thread might be happier playing in.#2 The guidelines were posted in an attempt to keep those whose doctrine and beliefs make them feel the sand in this forum is polluted out of this sandbox. #3 thru the history of this forum the guidelines were for the most part respected by those who viewed scripture differently than those who wrote them and they honored the guidelines request to only posthere if they could follow the guidelines. #4 While some who hold to the forum guidelines regarding posting here are derided by those who find our sand dirty it is in fact those posters who disregard the forum guidelines who are not behaving in a christian manner.#5 As I said above I take the blame because before I left my duties this sandbox remained clean. The pollution arrived afterward and I am praying for a "LIBERAL" dose of cat litter so all the nasty stuff can be scooped out. #6 one difference I have noticed between cats and liberals is that most cats know where it is acceptable to do their business.

Murphy
(ps. I am a dog and yes I am yelping)