if that's the case, then an even shorter process.
I believe you mentioned the lxx earlier.
what sort of day does it describe?
That was in relation to the summation of the genealogies...not the length of each 'day'...
if that's the case, then an even shorter process.
I believe you mentioned the lxx earlier.
what sort of day does it describe?
I've been looking at some young-earth creationist websites, and noticed that a lot of time is spent showing that the conventional dates for rocks and stuff is wrong, that the earth is much younger.
but the dates talked about don't always support a 6,000 year old earth.
from Library: Radio-Carbon Dating Proves a Young Earth
"For example, a rock aged by two different scientists using the most advanced radiometric technique was reported to be 10,000 years old by one scientist. The other scientist aged the same rock at several billion years."
is the 10,000 reliable?
what dates are arrived at with proper carbon-dating etc?
If it walks like a duck...and it talks like a duck....
Now you are attempting to blend Gen 1 with Gen 2.
Gen 1 is a summary.
Gen 2 provides the details of how it went down...
Here is the TRUTH. It is not possible to accurately date anything over 4,000 years ago, because prior to the Flood the atmosphere was ENTIRELY different. i will say that again, the atmosphere prior to the Flood was entirely different than the atmosphere we have now. Everything, plants, animals, and humans all lived extremely long ages, because of that atmosphere. All methods of determining age today is based solely on if the same atmosphere we have now is the same we have always had. This is not the case, therefore no method of determining age over 4,000 years ago will be accurate.
i am trying to come up with an analogy to better understand what i am talking about, so bare with me.
Its like we are all fish, living under the water. And our fish scientist have come up with a method of determining how old a certain rock at the bottom of the ocean is, based on certain molecules that are in the water absorb into the rock at a a rate of one per year, therefore they can determine how old the rock is by how many of those molecules are in the rock, if there are 20 molecules in the rock, that would mean the rock is 20 years old. The problem is however, that method is only good if that particular rock has always been under water. But that particular rock a thousand years ago was not under water, but in a totally different environment called AIR, it was not in any water, therefore no water molecules were entering into the rock.
i'm afraid that wasn't very good. But my point is, the method we use to determine age of things today is based solely on the assumption the atmosphere we have today is the atmosphere we have always had. Scriptures plainly teaches there was a different atmosphere 4,000 years ago. Men lived to be almost a thousand years old, it did not rain in that atmosphere. So trying to measure the age of something today based on the atmosphere we have today, when 4,000 years ago the atmosphere was entirely different, is like those fish trying to determine the age of a rock based on the assumption that that rock has always been under water. Do you see the fallacy here?
i will say it again, and it is the TRUTH :It is not possible to accurately date anything over 4,000 years ago, because prior to the Flood the atmosphere was ENTIRELY different.
^i^
I can understand why you say that.
in the course of our discussion of whether God could have made the universe "already in motion", I've said things that a lot of yec's say.
in gen 1, God treats them like adults, saying they will "rule over the fish of the sea."
in gen 2, the implication I read is that God puts adam in eden to cultivate it.
I read it that they are treated as adults both in chap 1 and 2... though I like to think of them as teenagers more.
Dust is old?
Two rocks rubbing together can make dust.....is that old?
what are they proposing in its place?
Posting a verse uses up precious BW...?!
Your replies are becoming more and more ridiculous and strained...rotflol...!
Show us...
Here's one (ridiculous) replacement theory. I know there are others, but I'm not familiar with them.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
No....where in the creation narrative was our sun created...?
That was in relation to the summation of the genealogies...not the length of each 'day'...
i will say it again, and it is the TRUTH :It is not possible to accurately date anything over 4,000 years ago, because prior to the Flood the atmosphere was ENTIRELY different.
^i^
The Bible is a collection of spiritual books - not a scientific encyclopedia.
when you asked how dust looked to me, I assumed you meant the dust in my backyard. to me, that dust appears old.
how old is the dust adam is formed out of? maybe a day, maybe billions of years.
a small amount of bandwidth, sure...
also, I encourage people to look up passages for themselves.
I decline your request to "show us".
instead, I will say that as I read it, when samuel goes to anoint david king, God advises samuel to deal with saul in such a way that the truth is veiled from saul. I'm interested in what you see when you read it.
it looks to me like on day four.
right, since you brought up the lxx, what sort of day does it describe?
also, what is the summation of the genealogies in the lxx?
Like a teenager....?
A day?
I'm sure the operators of this forum will forgive you if you post a BW-devouring scripture.
I've heard some lames excuses....but, yours takes first prize.
Really??? I thought it is the Word of God.
If Science is to be our guide, even partially, then what does science say about...
parting of the Red Sea.
Exodus 14:21-29
the sun moving backwards
Isa 38:8
water into wine
John 2:6-10
walking on water, calming of the weather
Mat 14:24-33
Ten Plagues of Egypt
Ex 7:14 - 12:36
Balaam and his talking donkey
Num 22:28
I'm still new to all of this so I am probably missing something obvious??