getting dates about a young earth

[Dan_473]

I truly don't know how old the earth or the universe is, but what I can feel confident about is that it is definitely older than 6,000 years. Remember, that would make the beginning of the world around 4,000 BC. With the Flood happening some time after that. Contrary to what people are proposing, that is simply not enough time for an ice age to come and go. Massive glaciers don't disappear overnight! Also, Chinese history goes back further than 4,000 BC. I mean, there is just so much evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, I'm not even scratching the surface of it. But that evidence starts to shrink after about the 25,000-30,000 year mark.

After that, a bit more scientific guesswork takes the forefront. Carbon dating is the main source used to give the 4.6 billion number, but things such as evidence of asteroid impacts and the starlight conundrum also point to an earth that may be at least millions of years old.

what are your thoughts on human teeth?
they seem to be designed for an omnivore.
but, the story seems to say that God tells adam and eve to eat only plants.

 

[Dan_473]

over 10000 years,



It fits well with them, properly interpreted,

what are your thoughts on every animal eating plants before the fall?

 

[pwrnJC]

that was before S.I.N was part of the scenario...there was no need to kill anything for meat eating...the land provided all nutrients needed, with a huge variety! However, we don't know if Adam and Even had 'omnivore" teeth ,do we? We can only speculate that Adam and Eve had NO belly buttons, right? lol

 

[valiant]

what are your thoughts on every animal eating plants before the fall?

Man had to 'subjugate/trample on' every living thing that moved on the face of the earth . This suggested violence might be needed. Thus while the green herb was supplied for food, there seems to have been an underlying violence that had to be dealt with, which suggests there were carnivores, even though God was content with what He had made. Compare how God was willing to kill an animal to provide coats of skins to Adam and Eve, which was not considered inappropriate,.

 

[Dan_473]

that was before S.I.N was part of the scenario...there was no need to kill anything for meat eating...the land provided all nutrients needed, with a huge variety! However, we don't know if Adam and Even had 'omnivore" teeth ,do we? We can only speculate that Adam and Eve had NO belly buttons, right? lol

sounds right to me.

before starting this thread, I figured it was possible to get mainstream science to mesh with the scripture stories.

now, I don't really think so.

 

[Dan_473]

Man had to 'subjugate/trample on' every living thing that moved on the face of the earth . This suggested violence might be needed. Thus while the green herb was supplied for food, there seems to have been an underlying violence that had to be dealt with, which suggests there were carnivores, even though God was content with what He had made. Compare how God was willing to kill an animal to provide coats of skins to Adam and Eve, which was not considered inappropriate,.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

in your view, did God tell the carnivores to eat plants?

or did God tell only some of the animals to eat plants?

 

[Dan_473]

I can agree with people who want to go with just what the scriptures say, and if science backs it, then great... if not, then maybe science will catch up later.

and I can understand those who want to go just with science, and read the scripture stories just as myth. I think it's logically consistant,
though it has big implications for how the rest of the scripture is read.


but, in all gentleness, I can't understand the mixing of some parts mainstream science, some parts scripture.
to me, it ends up not fitting well with mainstream science, nor with the scriptures.
like being lukewarm, neither hot or cold.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Man had to 'subjugate/trample on' every living thing that moved on the face of the earth . This suggested violence might be needed. Thus while the green herb was supplied for food, there seems to have been an underlying violence that had to be dealt with, which suggests there were carnivores, even though God was content with what He had made. Compare how God was willing to kill an animal to provide coats of skins to Adam and Eve, which was not considered inappropriate,.

I think he got the point across.

"This is what I think of sin And this is the price that will have to be paid"

 

[Bowman]

I look at the same context of job 38, and I see it as God talking about his power and wisdom, some of the examples (but not all) relate to creation.

I'll be glad to broaden my horizons, if you want to explain more... so, how does God telling all the animals to eat herbs relate to animals eating meat?

As a sequence of events, in epoch six, Gen 1 declares that the land animals were created before mankind, as thus…

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the soul of life according to its kind: cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth, according to its kind. And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to its kind, and cattle according to its kind, and all creepers of the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And God created the man in His own image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female. (Gen 1.24 – 27)



Expanding upon the events of epoch six, we have Gen 2, as thus…

And every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant of the field had not yet sprung up; for Yahweh Elohim had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.And mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (Gen 2.5 – 6)


Thus, from Gen1 & Gen 2, the reader is informed that:

· Land animals were created before mankind.
· There was no rain on the land before mankind.


Compare what we have learned from Gen, to the very same phraseology mentioned in Job 38, as thus…


Who has cut a channel for the flood; or a way for the thunderclaps, to make it rain on the earth where no man is, a wilderness and no man in it; to satisfy the waste and desolation, and to cause the source of grass to sprout? Is there a father for the rain? Or who has given birth to the drops of dew? From whose womb comes forth the ice; and the frost of the heavens, who fathered it; the waters hidden like stone, and the face of the deep is captured? Can you bind the bands of the Pleiades, or loosen the cords of Orion? Can you bring out the constellations in their season; or can you guide the Bear with its sons? Do you know the limits of the heavens; can you establish their rulership on the earth? Can you lift your voice to the clouds, so that floods of water may cover you? Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say to you, Here we are? Who has put wisdom in the inward parts; or who has given understanding to the mind? Who can by wisdom number the clouds or who can lay down the jars of the heavens, when the dust is melted into hardness, and the clods cling fast together? Will you hunt the prey for the lion, or fill the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in dens, and sit in the cover of their hiding place? Who provides food for the raven, when its young ones cry to God and wander about without food? (Job 38.25 – 41)


Again, we have Job filling-in even more details from epoch six.

Now, the reader is fully armed with the following information:

· Land animals were created before mankind.
· These very same land animals, that existed before mankind, hunted and killed one another – thus, animal death existed before mankind!

 

[Bowman]

I'm also disappointed that I haven't seen anyone attempt an explaination of how adam named all the animals of the field if some of them lived 100 million years before him.

Only a YEC would put forth a silly question like that.

'Of the field' (haś·śā·ḏeh), in all 130 usages of the term, outside of Gen 2.19, refers to LOCAL animals.

Thus...they were NOT from all over the planet....and they were living in the immediate area!

 

[Dino246]

...Gen 1 declares that the land animals were created before mankind... (and in Gen. 2): ... for Yahweh Elohim had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. (Gen 2.5 – 6)
Thus, from Gen1 & Gen 2, the reader is informed that:
· Land animals were created before mankind.
· There was no rain on the land before mankind.

Compare what we have learned from Gen, to the very same phraseology mentioned in Job 38…
Who has cut a channel for the flood; or a way for the thunderclaps, to make it rain on the earth where no man is, a wilderness and no man in it; to satisfy the waste and desolation, and to cause the source of grass to sprout? Is there a father for the rain? ... Will you hunt the prey for the lion, or fill the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in dens, and sit in the cover of their hiding place? Who provides food for the raven, when its young ones cry to God and wander about without food? (Job 38.25 – 41)

Again, we have Job filling-in even more details from epoch six. Now, the reader is fully armed with the following information:
· Land animals were created before mankind.
· These very same land animals, that existed before mankind, hunted and killed one another – thus, animal death existed before mankind!

Here we have an example of a non-sequitur (Latin for 'it does not follow'). Bowman's conclusion, that animals hunted and killed each other before Adam, does not follow the evidence he presented here. As I noted earlier, Job 38 does not speak entirely about the event of Creation; only the first few verses do. The rest is God's rhetorical questions to Job about the entity of Creation, about which Job likely knew very little. Incidentally, Bowman's statement, "Again, we have Job filling-in even more details from epoch six," is his opinion only, and is not supported from the text.

Gen. 2:5 does indeed say that early on, there was no rain. However, it is quite legitimate to interpret Job 38:25-28 as about the nature of the world which God has already created. To put it another way, God is speaking about the vastness of Creation and the fact that it is beyond human control; things about which Job could not have learned by investigation. Indeed, who even in this day has "cleft a way for the thunderbolt"? God is putting Job in his place, demonstrating to him by means of firm rhetoric that Job knows far less than he thinks he knows.

Again, Job 38:4-11 can be seen to be about the event of Creation. The rest of the chapter, beginning with verse 12, "Have you ever in your life commanded the morning..." is not clearly about the event of Creation, so Bowman's reasoning fails at this point. In summary, Job 38 offer no clear support to the proposition that animals hunted and killed each other prior to Adam's sin.

 

[Bowman]

Here we have an example of a non-sequitur (Latin for 'it does not follow'). Bowman's conclusion, that animals hunted and killed each other before Adam, does not follow the evidence he presented here. As I noted earlier, Job 38 does not speak entirely about the event of Creation; only the first few verses do. The rest is God's rhetorical questions to Job about the entity of Creation, about which Job likely knew very little. Incidentally, Bowman's statement, "Again, we have Job filling-in even more details from epoch six," is his opinion only, and is not supported from the text.

Gen. 2:5 does indeed say that early on, there was no rain. However, it is quite legitimate to interpret Job 38:25-28 as about the nature of the world which God has already created. To put it another way, God is speaking about the vastness of Creation and the fact that it is beyond human control; things about which Job could not have learned by investigation. Indeed, who even in this day has "cleft a way for the thunderbolt"? God is putting Job in his place, demonstrating to him by means of firm rhetoric that Job knows far less than he thinks he knows.

Again, Job 38:4-11 can be seen to be about the event of Creation. The rest of the chapter, beginning with verse 12, "Have you ever in your life commanded the morning..." is not clearly about the event of Creation, so Bowman's reasoning fails at this point. In summary, Job 38 offer no clear support to the proposition that animals hunted and killed each other prior to Adam's sin.

Anyone who can read, can easily see that Job 38 follows the sequence prescribed in Gen1...

Epoch 1: The heavens and the earth are created:

Gen 1.1
Job 38.4 – 7





Epoch 1: The earth is covered in water:

Gen 1.2
Job 38.8



Epoch 1: The earth is covered in darkness:

Gen 1.2
Job 38.9


Etc, etc, etc...


Keep denying the word of God...

 

[Dan_473]

As a sequence of events, in epoch six, Gen 1 declares that the land animals were created before mankind, as thus…

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the soul of life according to its kind: cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth, according to its kind. And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to its kind, and cattle according to its kind, and all creepers of the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And God created the man in His own image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female. (Gen 1.24 – 27)



Expanding upon the events of epoch six, we have Gen 2, as thus…

And every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant of the field had not yet sprung up; for Yahweh Elohim had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.And mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (Gen 2.5 – 6)


Thus, from Gen1 & Gen 2, the reader is informed that:

· Land animals were created before mankind.
· There was no rain on the land before mankind.


Compare what we have learned from Gen, to the very same phraseology mentioned in Job 38, as thus…


Who has cut a channel for the flood; or a way for the thunderclaps, to make it rain on the earth where no man is, a wilderness and no man in it; to satisfy the waste and desolation, and to cause the source of grass to sprout? Is there a father for the rain? Or who has given birth to the drops of dew? From whose womb comes forth the ice; and the frost of the heavens, who fathered it; the waters hidden like stone, and the face of the deep is captured? Can you bind the bands of the Pleiades, or loosen the cords of Orion? Can you bring out the constellations in their season; or can you guide the Bear with its sons? Do you know the limits of the heavens; can you establish their rulership on the earth? Can you lift your voice to the clouds, so that floods of water may cover you? Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say to you, Here we are? Who has put wisdom in the inward parts; or who has given understanding to the mind? Who can by wisdom number the clouds or who can lay down the jars of the heavens, when the dust is melted into hardness, and the clods cling fast together? Will you hunt the prey for the lion, or fill the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in dens, and sit in the cover of their hiding place? Who provides food for the raven, when its young ones cry to God and wander about without food? (Job 38.25 – 41)


Again, we have Job filling-in even more details from epoch six.

Now, the reader is fully armed with the following information:

· Land animals were created before mankind.
· These very same land animals, that existed before mankind, hunted and killed one another – thus, animal death existed before mankind!

ok, those are possible points.

some reasons why I don't think job 38 & 39 aren't about day six:

God asks Job, "Who has put wisdom in the inward parts; or who has given understanding to the mind", implying that humans have wisdom here. eve thinks (rightly or wrongly) that eating the fruit will give her wisdom.
so, this part looks like after the fall.

when God asks "Will you hunt the prey for the lion", I don't see that it has to be pre-fall.
if God is asking Job is he can do it (as opposed to "where were you"), this sounds to me like it's refering to Job's time.

I don't know how hebrew verb tenses work, but every translation I've seen brings the latter part of 38 and all of 39 into present time.


how do you understand, on day six, God telling all the animals to eat plants?

 

[Dan_473]

Only a YEC would put forth a silly question like that.

'Of the field' (haś·śā·ḏeh), in all 130 usages of the term, outside of Gen 2.19, refers to LOCAL animals.

Thus...they were NOT from all over the planet....and they were living in the immediate area!

ok... a possible interpretation.

one issue is then did adam name the local dinosaurs?

I disagree that the word for 'of the field' always means local animals.

in gen 3, "the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made."
I think the author is saying the serpent was the trickiest animal, not just sneakier than the local animals.

and again, the serpent is "Cursed ... more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field."
I don't think this means that there are other animals outside the local area that are more cursed than the serpent.

did adam name the birds commonly dated to 100 million years ago?

 

[Dan_473]

Here we have an example of a non-sequitur (Latin for 'it does not follow'). Bowman's conclusion, that animals hunted and killed each other before Adam, does not follow the evidence he presented here. As I noted earlier, Job 38 does not speak entirely about the event of Creation; only the first few verses do. The rest is God's rhetorical questions to Job about the entity of Creation, about which Job likely knew very little. Incidentally, Bowman's statement, "Again, we have Job filling-in even more details from epoch six," is his opinion only, and is not supported from the text.

Gen. 2:5 does indeed say that early on, there was no rain. However, it is quite legitimate to interpret Job 38:25-28 as about the nature of the world which God has already created. To put it another way, God is speaking about the vastness of Creation and the fact that it is beyond human control; things about which Job could not have learned by investigation. Indeed, who even in this day has "cleft a way for the thunderbolt"? God is putting Job in his place, demonstrating to him by means of firm rhetoric that Job knows far less than he thinks he knows.

Again, Job 38:4-11 can be seen to be about the event of Creation. The rest of the chapter, beginning with verse 12, "Have you ever in your life commanded the morning..." is not clearly about the event of Creation, so Bowman's reasoning fails at this point. In summary, Job 38 offer no clear support to the proposition that animals hunted and killed each other prior to Adam's sin.

good research, and I agree.



other things I saw in chap 39 (38 & 39 are one literary passage, imo).

"[the horse] scents the battle from afar,
And the thunder of the captains and the war cry."

so, sounds like there are humans around.

and after talking about horses, the passage moves on to talk about hawks, which I think are listed on day five.

 

[Bowman]

how do you understand, on day six, God telling all the animals to eat plants?

Observe the dietary commands in Gen 1, as thus…

And God created the man in His own image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female. And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the seas, and over birds of the heavens, and over all beasts creeping on the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every plant seeding seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree seeding seed; it shall be food for you.And to every beast of the earth, and to all birds of the heavens, and to every creeper on the earth which has in it a living soul, every green plant is for food. And it was so.(Gen 1.27 – 30)






In Gen 9, the dietary commands are altered, as thus…




And God blessed Noah and his sons. And He said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And your fear and your dread shall be on all the animals of the earth, and on every bird of the heavens, on all that moves on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hands. Every creeping thing which is alive shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green plant. (Gen 9.1 – 3)




Clearly, after the flood, we can see that the diet for humanity changed to include both plants and animals.


But…where is the command for animal’s diet to change?


We know that we have carnivorous animals living today.

What gives?


The command to make a change doesn’t exist, for the simple fact that it didn’t need to be changed, as carnivorous animals existed from their creation, in addition to plant eating ones.

 

[Bowman]

ok, those are possible points.

Rock-solid points.

some reasons why I don't think job 38 & 39 aren't about day six:

A double-negative makes a positive.

God asks Job, "Who has put wisdom in the inward parts; or who has given understanding to the mind", implying that humans have wisdom here. eve thinks (rightly or wrongly) that eating the fruit will give her wisdom.
so, this part looks like after the fall.

when God asks "Will you hunt the prey for the lion", I don't see that it has to be pre-fall.
if God is asking Job is he can do it (as opposed to "where were you"), this sounds to me like it's refering to Job's time.

I don't know how hebrew verb tenses work, but every translation I've seen brings the latter part of 38 and all of 39 into present time.

Job 39 introduces man...

 

[Bowman]

ok... a possible interpretation.

But......not the one that your YEC worldview will accept....

one issue is then did adam name the local dinosaurs?

The local dinos?

I disagree that the word for 'of the field' always means local animals.

in gen 3, "the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made."
I think the author is saying the serpent was the trickiest animal, not just sneakier than the local animals.

Non-sequitur.

and again, the serpent is "Cursed ... more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field."
I don't think this means that there are other animals outside the local area that are more cursed than the serpent.

Then they are all local.

Very, very weak argument from you...

did adam name the birds commonly dated to 100 million years ago?

Adam lived on the order of tens of thousands of years ago....NOT tens of millions of years ago.

Come on....

 

[Dino246]

Clearly, after the flood, we can see that the diet for humanity changed to include both plants and animals. But…where is the command for animal’s diet to change?...
The command to make a change doesn’t exist, for the simple fact that it didn’t need to be changed, as carnivorous animals existed from their creation, in addition to plant eating ones.

Here Bowman makes the error of an argument from silence, a form of eisegesis. The absence of a command regarding animals simply does not say anything about them. God is not obligated to tell mankind everything that He has told or commanded the animals, or what He has written into their instincts.

More on eisegesis...

"Eisegesis is when a person interprets and reads information into the text that is not there." (CARM dictionary of Theology)
" the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas" (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
"the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text." (Wikipedia)

 

[Bowman]

Here Bowman makes the error of an argument from silence, a form of eisegesis. The absence of a command regarding animals simply does not say anything about them. God is not obligated to tell mankind everything that He has told or commanded the animals, or what He has written into their instincts.

More on eisegesis...

"Eisegesis is when a person interprets and reads information into the text that is not there." (CARM dictionary of Theology)
" the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas" (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
"the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text." (Wikipedia)

Then show us your exegesis in lieu of your unreferenced opinion.