getting dates about a young earth

[truthman8]

Thanks. Moses says that Israel's sojourn in Egypt was 430 exact years. But Moses is writing what God told him, and so is reciting what God said to Abraham, which did not have to be 430 years. God may have rounded for convenience, or the extra 30 may have not been actual bondage yet.

 

[truthman8]

Jesus referenced every book of the Bible. He didn't reference any of the apocryphal books. And Moses didn't believe Enoch's books were authentic because they were written long after he had died. Long, long after. And the other books you mentioned are not inspired either. Let's not forgot Jewish people believe all kinds of mysticism that just isn't biblical (so they're not barometers of truth, God's Word is). I may not understand heaps of the Bible, but I seem to understand far more than you do.

I disagree completely, of course. Enoch's books were old when they were hidden 2000 years ago, and were written in copper. Why does Isaiah quote from Enoch in chapter 14? Also, Enoch mentions that the "angels" (Gabriel and others) were clothed with "fire". Fire in ancient times also meant electricity. Daniel describes Gabriel as having a face like lightning. Also, the name Satan is only used by Jesus and Job in the Canon as far as I know. But Enoch uses the name "Satanail", and it is the same
person. Why does he say that instead of Satan? Could that be the original name of Satan? If you read the books of Enoch, you can't really believe they were faked only a few years ago. They're just too detailed.

 

[Tintin]

I disagree completely, of course. Enoch's books were old when they were hidden 2000 years ago, and were written in copper. Why does Isaiah quote from Enoch in chapter 14? Also, Enoch mentions that the "angels" (Gabriel and others) were clothed with "fire". Fire in ancient times also meant electricity. Daniel describes Gabriel as having a face like lightning. Also, the name Satan is only used by Jesus and Job in the Canon as far as I know. But Enoch uses the name "Satanail", and it is the same
person. Why does he say that instead of Satan? Could that be the original name of Satan? If you read the books of Enoch, you can't really believe they were faked only a few years ago. They're just too detailed.

We know that Enoch wrote down a little in his walk with God (because there's a passage from him in the New Testament) but that doesn't mean the books of Enoch that we have to do are those belonging to the pre-Flood Enoch. Also, the oldest parts of the books of Enoch are believed to from 300BC at the very most. I love the evocative language found in Isaiah 14 but who's to say the people who wrote the books of Enoch (the ones we have today) weren't written using that chapter of Isaiah for inspiration? That's far more likely than Isaiah quoting from the books of Enoch. I think you're placing far too much weight on extrabiblical books. Without them, your claims don't stand. As for you saying the books of Enoch are too detailed to be fake. Really? Really? The Lord of the Rings is more detailed and that's fiction. I can think of other fictional worlds that are incredibly detailed, but I think you get the picture I'm painting.

 

[chancer]

the book of enoch is clearly poop

 

[Tintin]

the book of enoch is clearly poop

Interesting poop, but yes, it's still poop.

 

[Tintin]

We know that Enoch wrote down a little in his walk with God (because there's a passage from him in the New Testament) but that doesn't mean the books of Enoch that we have today are those belonging to the pre-Flood Enoch. Also, the oldest parts of the books of Enoch are believed to be from 300BC at the very most. I love the evocative language found in Isaiah 14 but who's to say the people who wrote the books of Enoch (the ones we have today) weren't written using that chapter of Isaiah for inspiration? That's far more likely than Isaiah quoting from the books of Enoch. I think you're placing far too much weight on extrabiblical books. Without them, your claims don't stand. As for your saying the books of Enoch are too detailed to be fake. Really? Really? The Lord of the Rings is more detailed and that's fiction. I can think of other fictional worlds that are incredibly detailed, but I think you get the picture I'm painting.

Good gravy. I do know English.

 

[chancer]

Interesting poop, but yes, it's still poop.

Interesting in the context of a historical read, but in context of being on par with scripture ... fossilized defecation ... sounds posher ..

 

[Kisses1990]

I don't understand why we are having this discussion. I have not read all 76 pages, but it should be obvious that it is an OLD EARTH. Earth is 4.56 billion years old, the same rough estimate of the sun and the moon. It is a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of the science to suggest it's 6000 years old or so. That's clearly falsified by quite a few independent branches of science...even branches of sciences that has nothing to do with setting out to determine age. It's still come to the same conclusions independently. I'm not sure what we are talking about here, folks. ...Those that think otherwise, I'm sorry to put them in line with conspiracy theorists and they should go to that part of the forum. Everything seems to suggest an Old Earth, and I'm not trying to fight with anyone...I'm actually genuinely baffled that we'd take this seriously...I thought it was obvious.

 

[Tintin]

I don't understand why we are having this discussion. I have not read all 76 pages, but it should be obvious that it is an OLD EARTH. Earth is 4.56 billion years old, the same rough estimate of the sun and the moon. It is a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of the science to suggest it's 6000 years old or so. That's clearly falsified by quite a few independent branches of science...even branches of sciences that has nothing to do with setting out to determine age. It's still come to the same conclusions independently. I'm not sure what we are talking about here, folks. ...Those that think otherwise, I'm sorry to put them in line with conspiracy theorists and they should go to that part of the forum. Everything seems to suggest an Old Earth, and I'm not trying to fight with anyone...I'm actually genuinely baffled that we'd take this seriously...I thought it was obvious.

You've been duped by secular humanist educators, so of course you're going to believe evolution/old earth mythology is an irrefutable fact. I've told you a number of times why the evolutionary understanding of the world's history doesn't gel with the Bible and its history.

 

[ukok102nak]

:smoke: as they say :8)
:read:
First of all, of course, stands the Bible, some parts of which, however, must be singled out, owing to their importance from the present point of view. The ethnographical list in Gen., x, is a valuable contribution to the knowledge of the old general geography of the East, and its importance can scarcely be over-estimated. The catalogues of stations of the Hebrew people in their journeyings from Egypt to the bank of the Jordan supply us with ample information concerning the topography of the Sinaitic Peninsula, the southern and eastern borders of the Dead Sea. In the Book of Josue is to be found a well-nigh complete survey of Palestine (especially of Southern Palestine) and the territory allotted to Juda in particular. Later books add little to the wealth of topographical details given there, but rather give a casual glimpse of an ever-growing acquaintance with places abroad—in Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia. The centuries following the Exile were for the adventurous Israelites a period of expansion. Colonies of thrifty merchants multiplied wonderfully East and West, above all throughout the Greek and Roman world, and Palestinian folks had to train their ears to many new, "barbarous" names of places where their kinsmen had settled. The Church at Jerusalem, therefore, was well prepared to listen with interest to the accounts of Barnabas's and Paul's missions abroad (Acts, xv, 12; xxi, 19).
While the authors of the English Authorized Version (A.V.) have made efforts to preserve proper names in their old Hebrew mould, our Douay Version (D.V.) adheres, as a rule, to the Latin transliteration. This imperfection is, however, by no means to be compared with that which arises from the astounding transcriptions of the Codex Vaticanus from which the Greek textus receptus was printed. To cite at random a few instances, Bahurim has become Barakim; Debbaseth, Heb.Dabbasheth, Gr. Baitharaba; Eglon, Hodollam or Ailam; Gethremmon,Iebatha, etc., not to speak of the frequent confusion of the sounds dand r or of the proper names wrongly translated, as 'En Shemesh by e pere tou eliou, etc. Thanks to a systematic correction of the whole text, such divergences are not to be found in the Codex Alexandrinus. Biblical information is in a good many instances paralleled, and not unfrequently supplemented, by the indications gathered from the documents unearthed in Egypt and Assyria. No fewer than 119 towns of Palestine are mentioned in the lists of Thothmes III (about 1600 B.C.); the names of some 70 Canaanite cities occur in the famous Tell-el-Amarna letters (about 1450 B.C.; on the wads of Karnak the boastful records of the conquests of Sheshonk I (Sesac) exhibit a list of 156 names of places, all in Central and Southern Palestine (935 B.C.); the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings Tukalti Pal-Esarra III (Teglathphalasar, 745-27), Sarru-kinu (Sargon, 722-05), and Sin-akhi-erba (Sennacherib, 705-681) add a few new names. From the comparison of all these lists, it appears that some hundred of the Palestinian cities mentioned in the Bible are also recorded in documents ranging from the sixteenth to the eighth centuries B.C.
"The immovable East" still preserves under the present Arabic garb a goodly proportion (three-fourths, according to Col. C. R. Conder) of the old geographical vocables of the Bible; in most instances the name still cleaves either to the modern city which has supplanted the old one (e.g. Beit-Lahm for Bethlehem), or to the ruins of the latter (e.g.Khirbet'Almith), or the site it occupied (e.g. Tell Jezer for Jazer; Tell Ta'annak for Taanach); sometimes it has shifted to the neighboring dale, spring, well, or hill (as Wady Yabis). The history of the Palestinian cities and of the changes which some local names have undergone in the intervening centuries is traced, and the identification helped, by the information supplied by geographers, historians, and travellers. In this regard, parts of the works of classical geographers, such as Strabo and Ptolemy, are consulted with profit; but they cannot compete with Eusebius's "Onomasticon", the worth of which was already recognized by St. Jerome, any more than the Peutinger Table, however useful, can rival the Madaba Mosaic Map (dating probably from Justinian's time) discovered in the autumn of 1897. The "Peregrinatio Silviae" (whatever the true name of the authoress), the descriptions of the Bordeaux pilgrim, the accounts of those whom the piety of the Middle Ages brought to the Holy Land, the histories of the Crusades and of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and, lastly, the Arab geographers afford valuable material to the student of Biblical geography.

though it is written on encyclopedia like article :rofl:
we consider to put it this way . ...

:ty:

godbless us all always

 

[valiant]

Thanks. Moses says that Israel's sojourn in Egypt was 430 exact years. But Moses is writing what God told him, and so is reciting what God said to Abraham, which did not have to be 430 years. God may have rounded for convenience, or the extra 30 may have not been actual bondage yet.

Exo 12:40
Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
Exo 12:41
And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.

 

[trofimus]

great!, so, using the literal meaning, one can add up the years from noah to abraham... a date for the flood can be arrived at... I think it's a late date, though... also the years from adam to noah.

He cant, if the genealogies are telescoped Because you will get the age of the parent only, but without the knowledge what gap is between him and the one called his "son".

What do you think that the date of flood is? When you simply sum all the Bible dates, you will get dates that are younger than the oldest civilizations (Egypt, China). If you believe the flood was global, there is must be some error in numbers

 

[trofimus]

if you accept the story of eden, great!

I think it is very well accepted in hard science that snakes are not capable of language. how do you view the talking snake?

Genesis 2 is a difficult reading. Bible scholars agree, that the style of author, vocabulary and the genre is so different from the Genesis 1, that it is probably from different era and author.

Genesis 1 seems to be more "technical" description of events, but then Genesis 2 comes in with garden, breathing to the face of human made of clay, taking his rib, making woman from it, talking serpent, trees of life, trees of good and evil, naming all animals, nakedness... if something is to be allegory, this is the candidate number one.

But beware - allegory does not mean "false". Allegory just use some simple pictures to describe deeper and more complex things.

 

[trofimus]

yes, that some animals ate meat, but could eat plants, can be squeezed into the wording. do you believe that there were a number of carnivores at the time of adam who ate mostly meat, as it is today?

would you agree, then, that humans ate only plants until after the flood? in your view, does mainstream science agree with this?

If you believe that all animals were created in six days, you must accept that all carnivores were created from the beginning, from sharks, spiders, snakes, bacterias to velociraptors, lions or wolfs.

Or you must accept that God made almost all the earth recreated after the fall... or that evolution works so quickly, that few hundreds years are enough to get carnivorous body and chemistry.

 

[trofimus]

I think whether or not humans evolved will affect one's calculation of the age of the universe.

do you believe eve was a product of evolution, or was she formed out of adam's rib?

what would it take to prove evolution to you? what has it taken to prove an old universe to you?

Why? Earth can be billions of years old but humanity can be only 100 000 years old.
It does not affect the age of Universe, if you believe in young humanity, because universe together with the planet was created in the verse Gen 1:1, before the six days and so before the creation of Adam.

 

[trofimus]

trofimus,

Mimochodem , jsem velmi zapůsobilo s vaší anglicky . Je to mnohem lepší než můj češtiny. Produkoval službu Google Translate.

[By the way, I'm very impressed with your english. It's way better than my Czech. Produced by google translate.]

Thank you, that is very kind of you I like English from my elementary school and I watch many documentaries or sitcoms on youtube in English.

 

[Kisses1990]

You've been duped by secular humanist educators, so of course you're going to believe evolution/old earth mythology is an irrefutable fact. I've told you a number of times why the evolutionary understanding of the world's history doesn't gel with the Bible and its history.

Hang on a second, I just want to point out that this doesn't have anything to do evolution. Whether or not evolution is true is irrelevant here. Geologists point to these conclusions for a number of reasons. In fact, lets suppose hypothetically evolution is true for a moment. There would be no reason that the earth would still have to come out to 4.55 billion years. It may take time for things to evolve, but there is nothing written in stone that it had to take that long. Why not much longer? Or much shorter? Could have just as well been 2 billion years. Or 8 billion years. Or 1 million years. As it turns out, many evolutionists in the late 19th century believed the earth was maybe millions or hundreds of millions years old. As better techniques were used and technology got better and things got more precises, etc... it turned out that everything was actually quite older than originally thought. People should always be willing to change their mind about things because we're all in this together and no single person has access to greater knowledge than anyone else. Unfortunately we can't Skype God or shoot him a text message on our iphones and ask him directly. That's just not how it works. Everything we know is a work in progress and nothing should ever be stated as absolute fact. But there are things that we're pretty sure about with a level of precision that gets pretty close to unchanging fact. We shouldn't be afraid of learning new things and changing our minds.

I mentioned a hypothetical assumption that evolution was true. Now let's assume it's dead wrong. That still wouldn't change what geologists say about the age of the earth. As it turns out, they do end up lining up pretty well, but nothing says that they have to. Could have went down a number of different ways. Same think with cosmology. I guess they don't know if everything started with the Big Bang, or if multiverse is true then time could be eternal. Either way still makes perfect sense and is in line with God as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure why you brought up evolution though. I wasn't trying to get in another discussion about it. You don't need evolution to have an old earth.

 

[Tintin]

Hang on a second, I just want to point out that this doesn't have anything to do evolution. Whether or not evolution is true is irrelevant here. Geologists point to these conclusions for a number of reasons. In fact, lets suppose hypothetically evolution is true for a moment. There would be no reason that the earth would still have to come out to 4.55 billion years. It may take time for things to evolve, but there is nothing written in stone that it had to take that long. Why not much longer? Or much shorter? Could have just as well been 2 billion years. Or 8 billion years. Or 1 million years. As it turns out, many evolutionists in the late 19th century believed the earth was maybe millions or hundreds of millions years old. As better techniques were used and technology got better and things got more precises, etc... it turned out that everything was actually quite older than originally thought. People should always be willing to change their mind about things because we're all in this together and no single person has access to greater knowledge than anyone else. Unfortunately we can't Skype God or shoot him a text message on our iphones and ask him directly. That's just not how it works. Everything we know is a work in progress and nothing should ever be stated as absolute fact. But there are things that we're pretty sure about with a level of precision that gets pretty close to unchanging fact. We shouldn't be afraid of learning new things and changing our minds.

I mentioned a hypothetical assumption that evolution was true. Now let's assume it's dead wrong. That still wouldn't change what geologists say about the age of the earth. As it turns out, they do end up lining up pretty well, but nothing says that they have to. Could have went down a number of different ways. Same think with cosmology. I guess they don't know if everything started with the Big Bang, or if multiverse is true then time could be eternal. Either way still makes perfect sense and is in line with God as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure why you brought up evolution though. I wasn't trying to get in another discussion about it. You don't need evolution to have an old earth.

There are so many reasons the old earth mythology doesn't work, but here's just one simple reason. If God told Moses to write about Creation Week and God actually wanted us to know that He created over very long ages, well, then Moses would've used Hebrewaic language that referred to long passages of time. But he didn't.

 

[Dino246]

Hang on a second, I just want to point out that this doesn't have anything to do evolution. Whether or not evolution is true is irrelevant here. Geologists point to these conclusions for a number of reasons. In fact, lets suppose hypothetically evolution is true for a moment. ...

Geologists, like other scientists, may base their studies on certain assumptions which are presumed to be factual. Case in point, the "geologic column". It was invented (as in, made up from the imagination) by a Scottish lawyer in the 1830's. He had the intention of undermining biblical creation. With very sketchy scientific data, his theory (non-scientific definition) was accepted and promoted. Much if not most of the "science" which is used to support extremely old (more than 20,000 years) ages for the earth is not, actually, observational science at all, but interpretations of historical evidence which are based on presumptions, assumptions, or evolutionary hypotheses.

Or, to put it in much more simple terms, just because a scientist says something, doesn't make it the truth.

 

[ukok102nak]

:smoke: is there anyone here who knows the exact location of this place that is also known as
the wilderness
:read:
Psalms 74:12
Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.
13*You q divided the sea by your might;
****you r broke the heads of s the sea monsters1 on the waters.
14*You crushed the heads of t Leviathan;
****you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

:happy: as what weve heard before the people of israel were been put unto the wilderness :8)
:read:
Amos 2:10
Also it was I who brought you up out of the land of Egypt and led you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite.

:rofl: and where in the world they have found the first part of the written holy scripture
such as the book of genesis

:ty:

godbless us all always