In your opinion do you believe world is about 6000 years old

I didn't realize there was a book. Thanks for sharing!

Yep around that or a bit more , the 6000 year time is a time based on genealogies in the bible

Some folks fail to realize that God created both science and Scripture, and science seeks to describe the physical world God has made while Scripture’s main focus is on why God made mankind and how we should live.

Yeah, but secular scientists often try to hide any scientific evidence of God's existence and His hand in creation. That's one of the things the documentary film and book discusses.

For the longest time, Christians just accept whatever is being taught by the secular scientists and educators but with the free flow of information that the internet has opened up, it's easier to find information from scientists who are actually Christian, who believe God and what the Bible says, and they reveal evidence of God's work and therefore His existence that the secular scientists have been trying to bury.

Try watching the documentary and if you like, it's companion book which gives additional info to what is discussed in the film. It made me realize just how important the account of Noah is!


🍸

Are we heading to the subject of the Nephilim?

No. That's a different topic. It should have its own thread.


🍸

.
● Ex 31:16-17 . .The children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe
the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a
sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days The Lord
made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was
refreshed.

The Jews' routine sabbath is a calendar day; as such it is no more than
twenty-four hours in length. However, the creation sabbath that the Jews'
routine sabbath commemorates is very different.

Six of the creation days were bounded by an evening and a morning;
whereas the seventh day isn't bounded, viz: the seventh day per Gen 2:1-3
hasn't ended. God has yet to pick up where He left off and continue making
things for the current cosmos. In other words; the original sabbath has thus
far been a perpetual, never-ending day.

That passage in Exodus is oftentimes appropriated by certain folks to prove
creation days were twenty-four hour events. But that argument is very weak
because the original sabbath day is on-going, and has thus far consumed
quite a few more hours than that of a natural day.

The original sabbath day is a useful figure of speech in the 3rd and 4th
chapters of the letter to Hebrews wherein it's used in a discussion of the
Jews' future.

Their occupation of the promised land was intended to be permanent, but
due to a failure of the people to move in and take the land when God
instructed them to, many at that time missed the boat.

Messiah's theocratic kingdom-- described and foretold by the prophets -
presents a second chance for the Jews to occupy that land permanently.
However; numbers of Jews are allowing the opportunity to slip thru their
fingers via their stubborn refusal to accept Jesus (a.k.a. Y'shua) as the
monarch designated by God to govern the kingdom.
_

That's the tradition, originally taken from 17th century bishop Ussher's Bible chronology of Adam back to 4004 B.C.

The Bible points to God's original creation having happened much longer ago though. See my posts on the Gap Theory thread.

Now it is the year 7533 after the creation of the world according to Byzantine Julian calendar where new year starts at 14 September. This calculation is based on Septuagint version of the Bible.
I believe that the universe is not more than 8000 years old, even though I cannot witness it.

שלום עליכם
Shalom, God's peace be upon you.

The evidence for an old earth is not compelling it is a fact.

The evidence for an old earth has nothing to do with deception.

The evidence for an old earth is constantly increasing.

You don't need, by the way, the theory of Evolution to understand that the earth is ancient.

I will point out one of the errors in the video of "the Ark and the Darkness".

They said that the flood deposited the sedimentary layers that cover the earth.

What they missed for example in say the Grand Canyon, is that, the Colorado River.
Over an enormous amount of time cut through those 40 beds of sedimentary rock.
The sedimentary layers existed before the erosion caused by the Colorado River, or the
erosion caused by say Noah's Flood!

It is impossible that the great flood deposited those sedimentary strata in the
Grand Canyon when it cut through those strata. That is a contradiction.

Can you see why I do not accept a young earth?

The Grand Canyon sedimentary layers and all 40 layers are the visual refutation, the
evidence for an old earth.

I do readily accept miracles.

But I also accept the visual evidence for an old earth that is world wide.
An old earth is what the evidence dictates and that is from many scientific
disciplines. An old earth is not an interpretation of the scripture. An old earth
is not a philosophy or an idea. The earth is very old and that is the observed conclusion.

Any Christian that studies Paleontology, Archaeology, Astronomy, or Geology. Will
given some time accept the old earth evidence. That is done without the theory
of evolution it has nothing to do with evolution of species.

The fact that the earth rotates around the sun was difficult for folk to
accept in the sixteenth century. These days it is impossible for anyone to hold
on to the idea of a young earth.

As I have said previously the only difference between the young earth hypothesis
and the old earth theory. Is the timeline.

It is important not to get so bogged down in quibbling about details that we miss the main point that the scientific theory of a unique universe exploding from a singularity essentially agrees with the biblical teaching about creation ex nihilism. Hurray!

I hope not.

Your description of the genesis of the universe is from cosmology.
The singularity is an idea, an idea that cannot ever be observed.
The Cosmologists will tell you that the singularity is not scientific.

Let there be light is the evidence that is observed in the background
cosmic radiation.

Whereas Geology is solely based on observable evidence.

The evidence is what matters and not ideas or an interpretation of the
scripture.

There may have only been two monkeys on the ark, but after the flood when the world changed, the children of those monkeys may have been very different. All the species of them probably came from only two.

Evidence is good and the singularity theory is derived from the best available evidence which is sufficient IMO as is the case regarding geological evidence that intrigues me whenever I contemplate the Grand Canyon but keep in mind that even the so-called hard sciences are works in progress and not perfect.

Scientific theories can be destroyed by a single piece of evidence.

That is the interesting point about any scientific theory, it can only exist
as long as no contrary evidence arises.

The singularity is an infinite amount of energy contained within zero dimensional
space. The energy contained in the singularity is more than enough to generate
two trillion galaxies. I do not accept the idea of the singularity. That is not a scientific
entity by any means, it is beyond science.

Focus on the observable, focus on the mile high Colorado Plateau that the Grand Canyon
sits in. Look at the layers, strata, beds, that constitute the Grand Canyon. There is a layer
laid down by lava in there. There are two limestone layers and limestone is formed by
dead sea life in a shallow sea. One of these limestone layers is 100 feet thick.

The limestone layers are not at the top of the strata.

The upper strata have shell fossils not limestone.

They say the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood and that's not correct.

You are just presenting a summary of the secular view (of scientists who don't want to believe in God), plus no source citation. But the creationists also have their own view of the how the Grand Canyon came to be. Here is their perspective from "Young Earth-Old Earth: Debating the Geological Evidence" It's a long article, so I'll just post the relevant parts to this discussion. But I hope readers will read the whole article - it's very interesting and you will learn a lot!


A YOUNGER CREATION

Who has not heard the theory that the Grand Canyon was eroded slowly during tens of millions of years by the Colorado River? It is a simple and elegant story that has become a great nature myth of the twenty-first century. Geologists generally reject that explanation of Grand Canyon formed by a through-flowing river over tens of millions of years. The deposits on the western side of Grand Canyon are of the wrong character to argue for a long-enduring river. Also, the river delta deposit on the west side of the Canyon is only hundreds of cubic miles in volume, not thousands of cubic miles, as required by the ancient-river theory. So, the more-recent, popular theories of Canyon formation involve a younger Canyon formed by catastrophic process! A good theory for the formation of the Canyon recognizes lake silt deposits on the eastern side of the Canyon in the Hopi Buttes and elsewhere. These silt deposits are thought to be evidence of a large lake, or series of lakes, at six thousand feet elevation on the Colorado Plateau. Could these lakes have breached their natural dam in the eastern Grand Canyon, as catastrophic drainage rapidly eroded Grand Canyon? Geologists are starting to think this way.

The writer of this section of the web page, Steven A. Austin, closes with this:

MORE THAN SCIENCE

Two observers stand on the rim of Grand Canyon. Those two observers are geologists. One is an evolutionary geologist, and the other is a creationist geologist. They are seeking to decipher clues to an immense puzzle. They are trying to understand the geologic history of Grand Canyon. The conclusions of both geologists are derived largely from their framework of assumptions. It is not strictly speaking a scientific endeavor as no human observer was there, and no one can repeat or test scientifically interpretations of history. Creationists believe that God is the reliable observer when it comes to the issues of origins. We can trust the Creation-Fall-Flood framework of Scripture that God has provided. We can also trust our eyes as we seek to understand the great natural wonder He has made at Grand Canyon.

It's true what he says. No human observer today was there to witness it. But between the secular scientist who doesn't want to believe in God and God's own testimony of what He did in the Bible, who are we to believe? You have a tendency to believe the secular (to your detriment), but I believe what the Bible says.

There's a lot in the documentary and one of the things it talks about is that the flood basically came about because man was thinking evil all the time and God had to judge it. The flood event was told to Noah and God told him to prepare the ark. Noah did as he was told, brought his family in and all the animals the Lord instructed him to bring in. Then the flood came and destroyed all living things outside that ark.

The point of flood and Noah and why Jesus brought this to the attention of his hearers is that it's going to happen again because man is getting worse all over again. If the earth is ancient, that would push the event of the flood far away from today as to make it an inconsequential event to us. But if this occurred in a young earth, then this event didn't happen too long ago and makes people realize that a future return of the Lord is more likely in our lifetime.

That's one of the things that documentary brought to attention. And you missed it. But then again, you've missed a lot of what the end times prophecies mean. Your view of it is one jumbled mess. You should honestly ask God to help you study it better.


🦑