getting dates about a young earth

[trofimus]

Hugh Ross? Oh, boy. You do have credible sources.

Hugh Ross? Yes, he is credible:
- Ph.D. in astrophysics
- undergraduate degree in physics
- postdoctoral research fellow for five years at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies
- won the Trotter Prize, delivering the Trotter Lecture at Texas A&M University on "Theistic Implications for Big Bang Cosmology"

What in the world do you have against his credibility?

BTW, because I dont have to fight the mainstream science, I am not depended on some particular source, my source can be almost every scientist (except few hundreds of YEC ones, but contribution of these to science is almost none, so you will not meet them "in wild").

 

[Dan_473]

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.

right, so I think we can move on, because whether yec is based on ignorance or not is of course a main issue of the thread.

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".

I think it's very different. why include "n" if it is meaningless?

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?

I think it matters because

"Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and begat Shelah"

is not the same as

"Arpachshad begat Shelah"

do you believe that 35 has a mystical meaning?

 

[Dan_473]

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.

I'll be glad to talk about why I think exodus 20 refers to calendar days for both God and humans... but I've already done that for many pages here, so before I do it again (and I will be glad to), I'm interested in hearing your responses to plants and eve, since resolving those kinds of issues will probably make a 'days' discussion more efficient.




I think another example of incompatability is where the human sense of good and evil come from. mainstream science would say it was the product of natural selection, humans who had this sense would more likely do things that in the end promoted their genes.

in genesis, God makes a special tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. then, a talking snake tempts the first two humans into eating its fruit. after they eat it, they know the difference between good and evil.

I can't think of any way to make that story fit with mainstream science.

 

[trofimus]

I think it's very different. why include "n" if it is meaningless?

Dont get me wrong. I did not say its meaningless. I only say that genealogies are often telescoped to give some nice number like 7, 40 etc.
So when they are telescoped, the only difference is that the name of "son" is not the son of the parent, but some descendant of this son.

I think it matters because
"Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and begat Shelah"
is not the same as
"Arpachshad begat Shelah"

do you believe that 35 has a mystical meaning?

The same response like above. Telescoped genealogy means the name of the son is not the name of the direct son, but of some of his descendants. Like you are the son of Adam and he begat you when he begat Seth, for example. The info about how old he was at that time makes no difference, because its not related to what I mean is telescoped.

 

[trofimus]

I'll be glad to talk about why I think exodus 20 refers to calendar days for both God and humans...

Ppl can talk about their view of some verses centuries and still not getting to agreement, so I think if world is proven to be old, we dont have to do this, this explanation of Ex 20 would contradict reality.

I think another example of incompatability is where the human sense of good and evil come from. mainstream science would say it was the product of natural selection, humans who had this sense would more likely do things that in the end promoted their genes.
in genesis, God makes a special tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. then, a talking snake tempts the first two humans into eating its fruit. after they eat it, they know the difference between good and evil.
I can't think of any way to make that story fit with mainstream science.

By "science" I mean theories, that are proved. There are many theories, that cant be proved or not proved yet, so there is no need to take them in account. Like "many worlds hypothesis" or your example of origin of the sense of good/evil.

I'm interested in hearing your responses to plants and eve, since resolving those kinds of issues will probably make a 'days' discussion more efficient.

I cant find that, can you repeat the questions?

 

[Dan_473]

Dont get me wrong. I did not say its meaningless. I only say that genealogies are often telescoped to give some nice number like 7, 40 etc.
So when they are telescoped, the only difference is that the name of "son" is not the son of the parent, but some descendant of this son.

I agree that ancient genealogies are often telescoped.

if you believe that the "n" in "X was n years old when he begat Y" is not meaningless, then what meaning do you attach to it?

 

[Dan_473]

By "science" I mean theories, that are proved. There are many theories, that cant be proved or not proved yet, so there is no need to take them in account. Like "many worlds hypothesis" or your example of origin of the sense of good/evil.

in your opinion, what is the best theory from mainstream science about the origin of the human sense of good and evil?

what theories from mainstream science are the most popular among most scientists?

I cant find that, can you repeat the questions?

sure!

an example [of mainstream science and the genesis stories not being compatable] 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.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Hugh Ross? Yes, he is credible:
- Ph.D. in astrophysics
- undergraduate degree in physics
- postdoctoral research fellow for five years at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies
- won the Trotter Prize, delivering the Trotter Lecture at Texas A&M University on "Theistic Implications for Big Bang Cosmology"

What in the world do you have against his credibility?

BTW, because I dont have to fight the mainstream science, I am not depended on some particular source, my source can be almost every scientist (except few hundreds of YEC ones, but contribution of these to science is almost none, so you will not meet them "in wild").

That's pretty rude, Do you have any examples?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No. Because the existence, death and ressurection of Christ is provable, young earth is not.

Says who? Were you there?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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.

please. do tell.. Where does it do such a thing?

 

[Tintin]

Hugh Ross? Yes, he is credible:
- Ph.D. in astrophysics
- undergraduate degree in physics
- postdoctoral research fellow for five years at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies
- won the Trotter Prize, delivering the Trotter Lecture at Texas A&M University on "Theistic Implications for Big Bang Cosmology"

What in the world do you have against his credibility?

BTW, because I dont have to fight the mainstream science, I am not depended on some particular source, my source can be almost every scientist (except few hundreds of YEC ones, but contribution of these to science is almost none, so you will not meet them "in wild").

Hugh Ross could be the equivalent of the Queen of England in the world of science and it means nothing if he's not led by God's truth. He has to create numerous hoops to jump through to even come up with a half-baked old earth mythology that kind of/doesn't really/fails at aligning with God's Word.

Here's a great book refuting Ross' teachings:

 

[Tintin]

Biblical creationists have contributed little to nothing to science? LOL. Pull the other one! I suppose you've never heard of Sir Isaac Newton and the man who invented the CAT scan and the man who invented Taxonomy etc. There are so many more. I could go on and on. But I believe you won't give the time of day to anything that even has the air of biblical creationism. At least, be honest enough to admit that you're not thinking critically.

 

[abcdef]

If I may offer this,
At the time God spoke through Moses,it was believed that everything was made from 4 elements air,water,earth and fire. The story shows the creation and authority over these elements by God. It is speaking to all people for all time, from the simple person to the most intelligent person of our time. Imagine if God tried to explain physics or atomic energy to the people of the distant past.
1 Cor 2:14 says "the things of the Spirit of God","are spiritually discerned". The Bible is of "the Spirit of God". The creation story is showing men the transition from the spiritual to the physical.
In the spiritual understanding it is showing how we live in a world with good and evil, light and dark,order and chaos,life and death, flowing around us and through us all the time. How would you explain something like that in scientific terms?
The creation is for the glory of Jesus and for the human souls to live in.
The symbolism is understood by all throughout time.

 

[trofimus]

I agree that ancient genealogies are often telescoped.

if you believe that the "n" in "X was n years old when he begat Y" is not meaningless, then what meaning do you attach to it?

Why not the literal meaning? Just the info about how old they were in these days.

 

[trofimus]

in your opinion, what is the best theory from mainstream science about the origin of the human sense of good and evil?

I dont know, I dont care about psychological theories so much. I accept the Bible story of Eden. Psychology, sociology etc are not the "hard science" where everything has to be per-reviewed and testable.

I think is especially interesting, that God tells humans and all the animals to eat plants..."

It quite depends on your translation wording. I would say God gave the green plants to eat for all animals. Not "only", but they can eat that.
You can realize, that God allowed people eat meat after the flood, but no such thing occur to animals, so they were always allowed to eat meat too.

"God makes eve out of adam's rib... the origin of human females is very different in mainstream science."

Can be, but we are not talking about evolution, but about the age of universe. Its a question, if evolution of humans is proved or not. If it would be really proved, we would have to look for the right explanation of the creation of Adam, I dont think it is proved yet, its only a working hypothesis.

 

[trofimus]

Biblical creationists have contributed little to nothing to science? LOL. Pull the other one! I suppose you've never heard of Sir Isaac Newton and the man who invented the CAT scan and the man who invented Taxonomy etc. There are so many more. I could go on and on. But I believe you won't give the time of day to anything that even has the air of biblical creationism. At least, be honest enough to admit that you're not thinking critically.

Yeah..! And now you can name all scientists before the universe was proved to be billions of years old. Nice try. I am talking about the era, when this is already proved, what YEC scientist made a real contribution to the field of this topic? Almost none. I dont care if somebody in a car industry believes in YE or not. Thats not the point.

 

[JimmieD]

I agree that ancient genealogies are often telescoped.

if you believe that the "n" in "X was n years old when he begat Y" is not meaningless, then what meaning do you attach to it?

How do you deal with the different genealogies across the Old Testament manuscripts? Meaning, what's your understanding of the difference between the chronologies of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch in Genesis 5 and 11?

 

[JimmieD]

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.

Even more broadly, it dismisses the value of observational data. Light isn't actually a constant. Measuring the microwave background radiation is unreliable. Not only can radiometric dating be disregarded, but by consequence observations and laws in physics and chemistry must be dismissed too. General relativity is incorrect. Etc, etc...

I think the idea that observational data can't be trusted to be largely reliable leads to some strange consequences. Unfortunately, the idea that we can't rely on the overall general reliability of observational data is an axiomatic belief that can't be disproven. You can never prove that God didn't create the universe with the appearance of old age (though why he would need or want to do such a thing is beyond me) just as you can never prove that you yourself weren't created a couple of minutes ago with built in memory and the appearance of age.

The idea seems like nonsense to me though. Of course we can trust observational data and we must assume this to be the case all day every day in order to even function properly. Without this belief being taken axiomatically, we wouldn't function properly and would be faced with continuous absurdity. And so, the universe looks old because it is old. Of course it looks like I was born 33 years ago because I was, in fact, born 33 years ago. It looks (and unfortunately tastes) like my coffee brewed 2 hours ago because the laws of physics and chemistry are true and my coffee was indeed brewed about 2 hours ago. If I took measurements and applied knowledge of thermodynamics, they would not lead me to the conclusion that I can't know when my coffee was brewed. Of course it appears that my GPS is reliable because the observations about General Relativity are, in fact, correct.

 

[Dan_473]

If I may offer this,
At the time God spoke through Moses,it was believed that everything was made from 4 elements air,water,earth and fire. The story shows the creation and authority over these elements by God. It is speaking to all people for all time, from the simple person to the most intelligent person of our time. Imagine if God tried to explain physics or atomic energy to the people of the distant past.
1 Cor 2:14 says "the things of the Spirit of God","are spiritually discerned". The Bible is of "the Spirit of God". The creation story is showing men the transition from the spiritual to the physical.
In the spiritual understanding it is showing how we live in a world with good and evil, light and dark,order and chaos,life and death, flowing around us and through us all the time. How would you explain something like that in scientific terms?
The creation is for the glory of Jesus and for the human souls to live in.
The symbolism is understood by all throughout time.

Hi abcdef, welcome to CC!

I'm fine with the idea that the genesis stories are a set of symbols, and as such shouldn't be expected to match up with mainstream science. (of course, then, many other things in the scriptures could be treated as symbolic.)

 

[tourist]

If I may offer this,
At the time God spoke through Moses,it was believed that everything was made from 4 elements air,water,earth and fire. The story shows the creation and authority over these elements by God. It is speaking to all people for all time, from the simple person to the most intelligent person of our time. Imagine if God tried to explain physics or atomic energy to the people of the distant past.
1 Cor 2:14 says "the things of the Spirit of God","are spiritually discerned". The Bible is of "the Spirit of God". The creation story is showing men the transition from the spiritual to the physical.
In the spiritual understanding it is showing how we live in a world with good and evil, light and dark,order and chaos,life and death, flowing around us and through us all the time. How would you explain something like that in scientific terms?
The creation is for the glory of Jesus and for the human souls to live in.
The symbolism is understood by all throughout time.

Glad to have you join our community. Welcome to CC.