You use the same logic that the scientific community and the world uses to say we are nuts to believe a Jewish carpenter died for all our sins and that God the Father raised Him to life on the 3rd day.
getting dates about a young earth
- Thread starter Dan_473
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
hi again trofimus,
let's start with #5. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say God created the stars with the light already heading towards us.
I think it's a good parallel with God creating adam as a fully-functioning human.
do you believe that all humans came from just one human?
(The rest of your text is in red to distinguish.)
There is far less tension over this issue than there is over simply being a Christian in a non-Christian world.
1. You must throw out all ancient cultures records (Egypt, China...) and archeology as fairy tales, because they seem to predate the flood according to young earth dating.
"Seem to" says so much in two little words. No tension here.
2. You must dismiss all the human civilization relics predating 6000 years as wrongly dated or falsified.
Question, not dismiss. Because there are no continuous, extensive, chronological records, it is difficult to date anything prior to about 2-300 BC with any degree of "certainty". There is plenty of reason to question the methods by which things are 'dated'.
3. You must dismiss virtually all sorts of dating except some primitive counting games with numbers.
I don't know about other people, but I haven't done extensive reading on this subject. I do know that dating by radio-isotopes is fraught with problems.
4. You cannot read almost any scientific magazine, watch almost any scientific documentary, without the feeling they are trying to get you.
Because I understand that much of this sort of media comes with certain presuppositions, I can take the good and discard what isn't. It's like listening to an eyewitness account, recognizing that the witness has but one perspective.
5. You must believe that distant light from stars was somehow "brought in to us" suddenly or that laws of physics changed drastically in already created universe.
There are several theories on this. It's one of many things which is not certain. We are unable to accurately determine the one-way speed of light, and that inability leaves a massive hole in your assertion.
6. You must dismiss dendrochronology.
Again, dendrochronology comes with assumptions. Those assumptions leave much room for uncertainty.
7. You must believe that millions of scientists (including christian scientists) do not know how to do their job (or are lying).
Or that the vast majority of scientists don't need to know or care about the age of the earth for their particular field of study.
8. You must believe that massive flood put perfect layers from the most simple organism to todays animals all over the world.
The inclusion of the word "perfect" undermines your entire statement. I do believe in a global flood, which resulted in most of the sediment layers and fossils we find.
9. You must believe that the vast majority of christians (who are holding theistic evolution, mostly) are terribly mistaken.
I don't accept your assertion that the vast majority of Christians believe in theistic evolution. I suspect that most really don't think about the age of the earth too much; they are too busy living life and getting to know Jesus.
And you must do all this only because you believe genealogies in Bible are complete (which is not the purpose of them) and that Adam was created right after the creation of Earth.
"Only because"... nope. Lots more to it than that. Perhaps you'd like to share your ideas on why the genealogies were included, since you "seem to" know so much.
Perhaps you'd like to tone down your rhetoric a little. I've read some of your posts in other threads, and you seem to be a reasonable person otherwise. Are you interested in a discussion, an argument, or just denigrating those with whom you disagree? If the first, I'll participate; otherwise, I won't bother.
wrong. It is YOU who 'seem to'. The facts confirm their ancient pre-2500 bc origin post flood,
you don't have to state precisely 'with certainty'. you just have to recognise that it is well before 2500 BC and there are continuous records.
NOT pre 2500 bc. You have too much evidence prior to that (eg the Jericho diggings). 15000 bc maybe.
primitive writing commenced about 3500 bc and it took over 500 years before it became usable for records in detail.
As with the Sumerian genealogies, only prominent figures were included in the ten names in a ancient genealogy.
Last edited:
Not sure what all you're raving about on that. I believe in God's creation and not evolution.
My point has been that God's original PERFECT creation of the heavens and the earth was at Gen.1:1 and then a destruction upon the earth happened to destroy the old world prior to Adam. Gen.1:2 is a formation to today's world, and includes the time prior to Noah.
That's why we know dinosaurs existed long before Noah, because we DO have skeletal fossil remains of them that God left, yet they did not exist after the flood of Noah because they would have been included on the ark, and still with us alive today.
And if one is going to say two of only 'some' animals were brought on the ark where others were not, then that weakens the Scripture evidence given of Noah and the flood by our Heavenly Father.
are there examples in ancient lists of this format
"Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and begat Shelah"?
in your view, does the "35" have a mystical meaning?
No. Because the existence, death and ressurection of Christ is provable, young earth is not.
But why do you want/need to do such a flip-flop with physics and astronomy in the first place?
Universe works the other way. You need stars to have orbiting planets, you need galaxies etc. Its not like creating a planet, floating it in nothing and then stretching light to in...
There is no need for such explanations. You dont have to get rid of Genesis, when you accept what is known about the universe and about the laws of physics.
I think the genesis stories are incompatible with mainstream science... so that's why I suggest that God created the universe "already in motion".
suppose we go with the idea that observable data about the stars indicate that it takes billions of years for them to form. does that mean that's how God did it?
when elijah stuck the jordan with his mantle, and he and elisha crossed over on dry ground, what would the observable data indicate as to how long the ground had been exposed to the air?
For Dino246:
Its too long already, so I will respond without quotation.
The basic problem with the YEC is, that you must disclaim almost all fields of science and history and to call them "assumptions" to match your worldview and Bible together.
It is not wise and makes christianity to be laughed at these days.
YEC is quite spread in USA, but most of European protestants, orthodox and catholics accept old earth. You can look it up.
Genealogies in Genesis are not there to count the age of Earth, but to provide the highlights of lineages.
And it was normal in ancient cultures, so there is no need to fight against that like against some kind of error or something not worthy to be in Bible in such case.
But I quite like the theory, that they are more signatures of the authors of various fragments of Genesis or of eyewitnesses of the events, than genealogies in a technical sense of just listing one father after another. I dont say it must be so, but it is a possibility.
"Only because"... nope. Lots more to it than that." Ok, try to post something you see as the main reason for you to believe in 6000 years as the age of the universe.
Its too long already, so I will respond without quotation.
The basic problem with the YEC is, that you must disclaim almost all fields of science and history and to call them "assumptions" to match your worldview and Bible together.
It is not wise and makes christianity to be laughed at these days.
YEC is quite spread in USA, but most of European protestants, orthodox and catholics accept old earth. You can look it up.
Genealogies in Genesis are not there to count the age of Earth, but to provide the highlights of lineages.
And it was normal in ancient cultures, so there is no need to fight against that like against some kind of error or something not worthy to be in Bible in such case.
But I quite like the theory, that they are more signatures of the authors of various fragments of Genesis or of eyewitnesses of the events, than genealogies in a technical sense of just listing one father after another. I dont say it must be so, but it is a possibility.
"Only because"... nope. Lots more to it than that." Ok, try to post something you see as the main reason for you to believe in 6000 years as the age of the universe.
What exactly is so incompatible between Genesis and mainstream science that you must believe in such extraordinary process of forming universe?
This is a great book that will answer these questions in a scientific yet Christian note...to anyone who knows or have read the Works of Christian Physicist / Mathematician John Lennox...you know what I'm talking about!
Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science: John C. Lennox: 0025986492175: Amazon.com: Books
Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science: John C. Lennox: 0025986492175: Amazon.com: Books
I like John Lennox, I have seen several of his debates about evolution. My favourite Old Earth proponent is Hugh Ross, he has many youtube videos, so no need to post a link about him
christianity is often laughed at... during paul's sermon in athens, "when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked".
are there any examples of ancient genealogies using the form "X was n years old when he begat Y"? I'm kind of thinking there isn't, because I've searched the web and asked a few times here, but no examples.
extraordinary, yes... I would say miraculous.
one example is the days in genesis are used in exodus 20 as an example of how long to work... so, calendar days...
an example I think is especially interesting, that God tells humans and all the animals to eat plants...
God makes eve out of adam's rib... the origin of human females is very different in mainstream science.
Yes, it is often laughed at. But they can laugh at it because of their ignorance or because of the ignorance of some christians. That makes the difference for me.
Using "begat" in ancient genealogies does not need to mean it is about the direct son. Genealogies were often telescoped.
I dont think that "x was n years old when he begat Y" is much different from "X begat Y".
Typically when a genealogy is telescoped, the number of names is reduced to an aesthetically pleasing number, 10, 7, 40 etc.
To your question: There are examples, even in the Bible itself, of telescoping genealogies, but I dont know, if the age of "father" is mentioned elsewhere. Why do you think it matters?
Big Bang is also a miracle. Miraculous is every way of creation, billions years or nanoseconds long. But we are talking about why not to accept what is scientific. Why to accept that first was bread and then the bakery.
Exodus 20 illustrates God’s pattern of six days of work and one day of rest, not their duration.
Genesis itself is quite clear that it was longer than 6x24 hours.
T
Tintin
Guest
I like John Lennox, I have seen several of his debates about evolution. My favourite Old Earth proponent is Hugh Ross, he has many youtube videos, so no need to post a link about him
Hugh Ross? Oh, boy. You do have credible sources.