getting dates about a young earth

[Bowman]

According to scripture God said let there be and there was. Out of nothing came everything.

God makes ten commandments in Gen 1....again, a process, if one should have sufficed...

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by notuptome According to scripture God said let there be and there was. Out of nothing came everything

Now all we have to do is find out how. The Bible tells us what and Who? It does not specifically tell us how.

 

[notuptome]

God makes ten commandments in Gen 1....again, a process, if one should have sufficed...

Adam could not obey even one. God by His determinate will created everything that exists. No where does it say that God used any process other than His divine will to do what He did.

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

God did not use evolution to create the world, or the life on the earth. The process of living begins after creation just as the process of sanctification begins after salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[valiant]

Adam could not obey even one. God by His determinate will created everything that exists. No where does it say that God used any process other than His divine will to do what He did.

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

God did not use evolution to create the world, or the life on the earth. The process of living begins after creation just as the process of sanctification begins after salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

actually it does, It says he created originally, and living creatures and man. for the rest it says He 'fashioned' what He had created,

 

[Bowman]

Adam could not obey even one.

Obey a creation command?

God by His determinate will created everything that exists. No where does it say that God used any process other than His divine will to do what He did.

A 'process' indeed.

Processes take time.

God did not use evolution to create the world, or the life on the earth. The process of living begins after creation just as the process of sanctification begins after salvation.

You are the only one to mention evolution, repeatedly.

Again, the humanist has already won with you...

 

[notuptome]

A 'process' indeed.

Processes take time.

What is time to the eternal God? Time is only relevant to creatures who are subject to it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[kodiak]

Show us where Eve is a 'city'.






You have brought nothing new to the table...

That is not what I was saying....

You refuse to address the information I have brought up....I have tried to address all of your information, but this seems to be going back to a one sided discussion. I am out of this discussion (partly for health reasons)....God bless and thanks for the discussion.

 

[Bowman]

That is not what I was saying....

You refuse to address the information I have brought up....I have tried to address all of your information, but this seems to be going back to a one sided discussion. I am out of this discussion (partly for health reasons)....God bless and thanks for the discussion.

All you have been doing is trying to spin the material which I brought up in the first place.

Go pat yourself on the back on your own time...

 

[Tintin]

I see now you have a problem in understanding simple English. That explains a lot.

Let me put it even more simpler for you.

You say the Flood was 2400 BC. Yet no one in that day knew about it. Those who wrote before 2400 BC and looked back on the flood, thought it was PAST. So you are now saying there were two floods the later of which was totally unobserved.

Furthermore you claim it was followed by a four hundred year ice age that was also unobserved. No one in history knew that it had occurred. Strange that IF it were true, You do say some silly things.

Nonsense. This is what you wrote:

and you've agreed the flood was c 2400 bc. I'm waiting for you to tell me how the people who wrote before 2400 bc didn't know about it(the Flood) except as a long past event.

People didn't write about the Great Flood before 2400BC (or so) because the Flood hadn't happened yet!No-one knew about the Flood? There are over 400 ancient Flood accounts from around the world and most of them describe a Flood that was global in nature. And yes, the Flood was recognised as being in their distant past, that (along with the confusion of languages at Babel and humanity's propensity for sin) resulted in garbled and confused and corrupted retellings of one true event that affected the whole world and everything in it. No, I'm not saying there were two Floods. I'm saying there was only one global Flood, the Flood of Noah's time.I've said this many times before. Very specific conditions needed to create an Ice Age and a global Flood is the only possibly option (secular science has many issues explaining the origins of their so-called Ice Ages). Furthermore, I mentioned a 700 year long Ice Age, not a 400 year old one. Biblical creationists work outwards from the Bible. Finally, this is what I said not 22 hours ago in this very same thread:

People may have recorded information prior to the Flood, but the dating systems of the world have to be adjusted somewhat to align with a roughly 6,000-year old creation if we want to go by what the Bible infers.

 

[Tintin]

LOL who are you to say how God should write His word?

God says He created it in six God-days, and He made clear that they were NOT man days.

He didn't say how long it took except as measured in God-days, He wasn't bothered.

That's purely your assumption. How can we trust God to anything He says in His Word if we can't even understand what God meant when He said 'day'? Huh? Context is king.

 

[Tintin]

Is "last freaking" the same as "last ****ing"?

No, of course not. I try not to swear. Is it a sign of exasperation at people who don't read their Bible properly, taking into account context and figurative language and the fact that this justification for an old earth has been used far too many times and doesn't have a leg to stand on? Yes.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

No, of course not. I try not to swear. Is it a sign of exasperation at people who don't read their Bible properly, taking into account context and figurative language and the fact that this justification for an old earth has been used far too many times and doesn't have a leg to stand on? Yes.

Interesting.

**attached image removed**

 

[Dan_473]

It doesn't rule before yom 4. it specifically ruled over man-days,

right! so, in order to have both God-days and man-days in the same passage, the same word would alternate in meaning.

is there something in the story that indicates that there should be this alternating meaning? or, is it in the attempt to make it match up with mainstream science?

 

[Dan_473]

...I have tried to address all of your [Bowman's] information, but this seems to be going back to a one sided discussion. I am out of this discussion (partly for health reasons)....God bless and thanks for the discussion.

I've had similar experiences, both here and other places. it always seems like just one more post should do it, bring clarity and understanding to the matter at hand.

but no, if the other person in the discussion won't answer directly, commits logical fallacies and won't acknowledge them, I think the only Christ-like option is to walk away.

hope to see you around later!

 

[Dan_473]

... (along with the confusion of languages at Babel and humanity's propensity for sin) resulted in garbled and confused and corrupted retellings of one true event that affected the whole world and everything in it.

I've thought about this, too. mainstream science doesn't take into account the tower of babel when dating ancient ruins and writings.

God confuses their languages, and scatters them "abroad over the face of the whole earth." If one doesn't take that into account, the dating system would come up with a lot of wrong answers, I think.

 

[4enlightment]

[video]https://youtu.be/s9_o7NGTkJc[/video]

 

[Tintin]

I've thought about this, too. mainstream science doesn't take into account the tower of babel when dating ancient ruins and writings.

God confuses their languages, and scatters them "abroad over the face of the whole earth." If one doesn't take that into account, the dating system would come up with a lot of wrong answers, I think.

Right, brother. And dating your own culture's history to thousands of years old or even more (when it most certainly wasn't) was the ancient world equivalent of saying 'mine is bigger than yours'.

 

[Tintin]

Interesting.
View attachment 145913

Maybe that's the word's origin, but that's not how I'm using the word.

 

[valiant]

Nonsense. This is what you wrote:

and you've agreed the flood was c 2400 bc. I'm waiting for you to tell me how the people who wrote before 2400 bc didn't know about it(the Flood) except as a long past event.

People didn't write about the Great Flood before 2400BC (or so) because the Flood hadn't happened yet!No-one knew about the Flood?

The flood was referred to as ancient in the Sumerian king lists.

There are over 400 ancient Flood accounts from around the world and most of them describe a Flood that was global in nature.

Lol they could not. They did not know about the globe,. They merely said that they were widespread,

And yes, the Flood was recognised as being in their distant past, that (along with the confusion of languages at Babel and humanity's propensity for sin) resulted in garbled and confused and corrupted retellings of one true event that affected the whole world and everything in it.

Many written BEFORE 2400 BC

No, I'm not saying there were two Floods. I'm saying there was only one global Flood, the Flood of Noah's time.I've said this many times before. Very specific conditions needed to create an Ice Age and a global Flood is the only possibly option (secular science has many issues explaining the origins of their so-called Ice Ages). Furthermore, I mentioned a 700 year long Ice Age, not a 400 year old one. Biblical creationists work outwards from the Bible.

an ice age unrecorded in history?

Finally, this is what I said not 22 hours ago in this very same thread:

People may have recorded information prior to the Flood, but the dating systems of the world have to be adjusted somewhat to align with a roughly 6,000-year old creation if we want to go by what the Bible infers.

but history can't be changed and that goes back well beyond 6000 years.

The Bible doesn't infer it. YOU infer it.

 

[valiant]

That's purely your assumption. How can we trust God to anything He says in His Word if we can't even understand what God meant when He said 'day'? Huh? Context is king.

But we understand it perfectly in its conext. its just YOU who has difficulty