getting dates about a young earth

[valiant]

What evidence is that?

we call it the ice age

 

[valiant]

Also, you say:

That's actually a straw man argument, because there are those who believe God's Word very much but do not believe in man's theories of evolution, yet they still understand that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years.

I think the word 'believe' rather than 'understand' would be more appropriate here.You're not even considering a 6,000 year old creation to be a viable option.Never mind that the old earth beliefs sans evolution still has many issues (eg. death and suffering before sin) and has to invent things like pre-Adamites and a Lucifer Flood etc. to try to make sense.

I do not 'believe' that the world is over 6000 years old. I KNOW it is. Archaeological evidence PROVES it beyond doubt.

The evidence for a 6000 year old world with a world wide Flood at around 2400 BC is totally discredited (and is not Biblical)

As for preadamites and Lucifer you are taking nonsense. Lucifer is not even Biblical

 

[Miri]

I do not 'believe' that the world is over 6000 years old. I KNOW it is. Archaeological evidence PROVES it beyond doubt.

The evidence for a 6000 year old world with a world wide Flood at around 2400 BC is totally discredited (and is not Biblical)

As for preadamites and Lucifer you are taking nonsense. Lucifer is not even Biblical

Depends which version you have, Just saying.

KJV
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut
down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12 NKJV
[12] "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut
down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!



Isaiah 14:12 NIV
[12] How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been
cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!


Isaiah 14:12 AMP
[12] How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning!
How you have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the nations
O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!

 

[Dan_473]

And we have plenty of evidence of nations which existed long before 2500bc.

how are things dated for the period, say, 3,000 to 2,500 bce? is carbon dating used? is it reliable for that time period?

 

[thecreationtutor]

only responded the way - because I saw kind of a nasty post from Bowman - talking about observation etc - Good science is easy - It's observable, testable, Repeatable- I teach this to middle schoolers. Evolution - is not repeatable - it's a historical theory - historical theories cannot be repeated.

- it's not testable, you cannot perform an experiment to prove it - video games and drawings are not experiments

and in reality is not observable- we see animals change - but that is not evolution, no one has ever seen a dog become a non-dog

When a theory violates Scientific Laws - usually that's a bad indication - Law of Biogenesis - Life comes from Life Even laws of thermodynamics, Heck even Laws of Linguistics with DNA not being random but actual language with semantics, purpose, meaning etc.

It's really basic - occam's razor --- the problem is people don't want there to be a God, I mean there is nothing new under the Sun.


I don't see how defending something that stems from a desire to reject God - Romans 1 can become an ideal for Christians. I don't see how arguing against a Christian who takes the Bible; at face value, exegetic study, hermaneutically accurate, theologically accurate with the character of God, is edifying, or loving to anyone. If you want to believe that - that's on you - but you shouldn't actually argue against someone who doesn't hold that view in any vehement manner whatsoever. Point taken myself.

 

[Tintin]

we call it the ice age

The Great Flood was the catalyst for the one and only Ice Age, roughly 4,300 years ago.

 

[Tintin]

I do not 'believe' that the world is over 6000 years old. I KNOW it is. Archaeological evidence PROVES it beyond doubt.

The evidence for a 6000 year old world with a world wide Flood at around 2400 BC is totally discredited (and is not Biblical)

As for preadamites and Lucifer you are taking nonsense. Lucifer is not even Biblical

Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence, they just view that evidence through different philosophical beliefs. For creationists, it's God's Word. For evolutionists, it's secular humanism by way of naturalism.

 

[Bowman]

I'm catching on to this guy "Bowman". A little too much strutting with no clue about real-life science employees.

I'm only going to point out that the science teams at universities are heavily involved with the peer review process in search of grant money to keep doing that. They have their own world. Relatively few actual free-world scientists bother with trying to publish articles in the top journals. Most don't have a budget for it nor the time required. They do their specialties day to day, making their companies money, satisfying customers. Government scientists mostly publish in government journals, the selection process far more fair, with no bias as to selection of reviewers, and there is no competition between board reviewers and authors. There are creationist scientists in government whose papers are not automatically tossed because of their persuasion, as long as the publication meets standard requirements.

The rest of your post appears to be a knee jerk response to difficult statements. Study up. You are free to ignore all creation science offerings, sticking with the atheists.

Actually, I've spent years comparing the evidences for YEC and OEC....and, by far, the most compelling evidences are in the old earth camp.

What I find most amusing, however, is that I accept YEC's as fellow Christians....but, YEC's, such as yourself, and others on boards such as these, reject OEC's as Christians.

See the double standard?

I have found that YEC's are some of the most close-minded, prejudiced people on the planet.

I'm not an atheist.

I reject human evolution.

I believe in divine creation.

I take Jesus Christ as my God & Savior.

The only difference is that I also accept the proven evidences of a billions of years old Earth, and an even older Universe.


You YEC's need to grow up...

 

[Bowman]

Other than the future event of Rev 20, where do you think that is, chapter and verse?

Satan wasn't bound when tempting Jesus. Scriptures have him going up and down, to and from, appearing as an angel of light.

Enough goofey stuff!

One does not build a sound doctrine around ONE verse. That is what followers of islam, and cults do.

Satan was bound at The Cross.

The Holy Bible says this time and again...


Heb 2.14


επει ουν τα παιδια κεκοινωνηκεν αιματος και σαρκος και αυτος παραπλησιως μετεσχεν των αυτων ινα δια του θανατου καταργηση τον το κρατος εχοντα του θανατου τουτ εστιν τον διαβολον


epei oun ta paidia kekoinōnēken haimatos kai sarkos kai autos paraplēsiōs meteschen tōn autōn hina dia tou thanatou katargēsē ton to kratos echonta tou thanatou tout' estin ton diabolon


Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, in like manner He Himself also shared the same things, that through death He might render entirely idle the one having the power of death, that is, the devil;


‘Katargēsē’ is in the aorist (i.e. past tense)...meaning completed action.

 

[Bowman]

{again, I'm answering your post with several small posts}


that's correct, 'child' can be aged between birth and maturity. at the same time, 'baby' refers to a very young child. so, if you were always thinking newborn in this context, 'baby' would have been an excellent choice, imo.

Semantics.

'Child' demonstrates the point, most assuredly...

 

[Bowman]

First off, I'm impressed with the obvious amount of time you've put into studying the hebrew and details of this issue.

Thanks!

Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, I think adam's apparent age
when he was formed came up because I said

that God may have made the universe 'already aged'. you responded that such a process would involve deception (as I remember it).

I gave three examples of God being 'deceptive' (though, looking back, I think a word like 'veiled' would've been a better choice)

Samuel, adam's age, wine.

at this time, I don't think we will easily reach an agreement on adam's age, so I suggest we take that off the table as an example.

after we resolve the samuel and the wine examples, I believe I can come up with more examples of God 'veiling' things

if more examples would be edifying.

Why don't you start by showing us your exegesis of your other two examples...

 

[Bowman]

only responded the way - because I saw kind of a nasty post from Bowman - talking about observation etc - Good science is easy - It's observable, testable, Repeatable- I teach this to middle schoolers. Evolution - is not repeatable - it's a historical theory - historical theories cannot be repeated.

- it's not testable, you cannot perform an experiment to prove it - video games and drawings are not experiments

and in reality is not observable- we see animals change - but that is not evolution, no one has ever seen a dog become a non-dog

When a theory violates Scientific Laws - usually that's a bad indication - Law of Biogenesis - Life comes from Life Even laws of thermodynamics, Heck even Laws of Linguistics with DNA not being random but actual language with semantics, purpose, meaning etc.

It's really basic - occam's razor --- the problem is people don't want there to be a God, I mean there is nothing new under the Sun.


I don't see how defending something that stems from a desire to reject God - Romans 1 can become an ideal for Christians. I don't see how arguing against a Christian who takes the Bible; at face value, exegetic study, hermaneutically accurate, theologically accurate with the character of God, is edifying, or loving to anyone. If you want to believe that - that's on you - but you shouldn't actually argue against someone who doesn't hold that view in any vehement manner whatsoever. Point taken myself.

OEC's embrace God's Special and General Revelations....and they must both agree.

For YEC's, such as yourself, to immediately equate billions of years with atheism and evolution tells me that the atheists and evolutionists of the world have won their battle with you!

Its little wonder that you can only teach your short-sightedness to impressionable middle-schoolers....as anything beyond this age level, then you would be laughed completely off campus.

 

[Tintin]

I don't believe old earthers can't be Christians. I believe even theistic evolutionists can be Christians. But do I think they're compromised belief systems that can be huge stumbling blocks and lead to the eventual abandoning of the Christian faith? Absolutely. If you haven't found the incredible inconsistencies regarding an old earth, I don't think you're looking hard enough.

 

[royalscot]

how do, the modern world pass on information. would that be through books. so without even looking at bible, when was pen and ink, a guide to the foundations of the earth. so first known, entry of pen and ink. is as far as you can go.
even the bible has that point in it.

 

[Bowman]

I don't believe old earthers can't be Christians. I believe even theistic evolutionists can be Christians. But do I think they're compromised belief systems that can be huge stumbling blocks and lead to the eventual abandoning of the Christian faith? Absolutely. If you haven't found the incredible inconsistencies regarding an old earth, I don't think you're looking hard enough.

I'm surprised that a technical person such as yourself has sided with the young-earth society.

Seekers looking into Christianity and seeing a 50% split on such a simple thing as the age of the Universe will know doubt put many people off.

Their thoughts would be....'how can Christians not even know that the earth is billions of years old? If they can't even correctly identify the physical things of this world, how can I believe them regarding the non-physical things?'


YEC will go extinct within two generations...

 

[Crustyone]

God, through His Son, created everything that is created, including the carbon that is being dated. He was able to make it look as old or as young as He wanted. He will be sending delusions to fool the unsaved when Satan is revealed, so why assume that an unchanging God has not already created delusions to make unbelievers believe the lie. The part about sending delusions when Satan is revealed is from 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

 

[secondtimearound]

‘Katargēsē’ is in the aorist (i.e. past tense)...meaning completed action.

Hello Bowman. I am not wanting to get into this debate nor highjack the thread, but I am just learning about doing these types of studies and happened to look up "aorist" earlier today. Finding what seems to be a contradicting definition of this tense.

"(especially in Greek) an unqualified past tense of a verb without reference to duration or completion of the action."

Derived this from a Bing search for the word "aorist". Here it says "without reference to duration or completion of the action."

You seemed skilled at this level of study. What am I missing?

 

[valiant]

how are things dated for the period, say, 3,000 to 2,500 bce? is carbon dating used? is it reliable for that time period?

It is NOT dated by carbon dating, which is unreliable. It is dated by historical documents, which we know existed at that time and we have today,

 

[valiant]

Depends which version you have, Just saying.

KJV
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut
down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12 NKJV
[12] "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut
down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!



Isaiah 14:12 NIV
[12] How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been
cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!


Isaiah 14:12 AMP
[12] How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning!
How you have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the nations
O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!

Isaiah 14.12 refers to the King of Babylon, not satan, and even he is not called Lucifer which is a LATIN term.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant I do not 'believe' that the world is over 6000 years old. I KNOW it is. Archaeological evidence PROVES it beyond doubt.

The evidence for a 6000 year old world with a world wide Flood at around 2400 BC is totally discredited (and is not Biblical)

As for preadamites and Lucifer you are taking nonsense. Lucifer is not even Biblical

Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence, they just view that evidence through different philosophical beliefs. For creationists, it's God's Word. For evolutionists, it's secular humanism by way of naturalism.

Creationists are of many types, including those who say the age is 6000 years old, and those who consider it is much 0lder, and those who believe 'evolution' was involved, It is not God's word which determines the age of the earth, it is man's arrogance, The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth