the earth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

yre15 -> the earth (1/4/2008 11:14:51 AM)

was listening to a debate on a non Christian site and somebody said anybody who believed the earth was only 6000 yrs old must be a moron. i'm sure there is a book or something i could recommend that explains why this is true. i guess i am seriously lacking in apologetics. thnx



rcjames -> RE: the earth (1/4/2008 12:01:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: yre15

was listening to a debate on a non Christian site and somebody said anybody who believed the earth was only 6000 yrs old must be a moron. i'm sure there is a book or something i could recommend that explains why this is true. i guess i am seriously lacking in apologetics. thnx


I would like to see Biblical evidence of the 6000 years from Genesis 1:1 to present age.

Thanks
RC

edited for spelling



cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/4/2008 5:20:23 PM)

As to dating the earth, there is some question whether the carbon dating methods can be applied to the earth with little error. However, the bible does not specify that the earth was created in 6000 years either. The Apostle says that a day is like 1000 years in the new testament, but this does not work out for a math equation to be used to interpret Genesis necessarily. In other words, God did not stand on earth with the sun revolving around Him when He began creation, did He? Therefore, it is counter-intuitive and egocentric (humanistic) or secular thinking to believe that He created it that way. We even read that the earth was formless and void before He begins the creation in the retroactive prophetic account given by Moses. So, there is no biblical reason to depart from the common dating method as an expostion of the Christian faith necessarily. If we want to share about what is important, why not include those 'facts' as Paul does regarding the unknown God when he goes to present The Gospel to gentile people?



ta_mosquito -> RE: the earth (1/4/2008 5:36:31 PM)

Moving this from FaithWalk to Science & Origins, but before I do, please be aware that there are many Christians who believe the earth is old.



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/4/2008 6:09:39 PM)

ORIGINAL:yre15
quote:

was listening to a debate on a non Christian site and somebody said anybody who believed the earth was only 6000 yrs old must be a moron.

You don’t have to go to a “non-Christian” site to hear that said. Many professing Christians looked down on those of us who take God at His word.
The most common accusation you will find here (although it is a bogus accusation) is that we say those who reject YEC are not really Christians.

HERE is a good source for YEC arguments.



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/4/2008 8:46:00 PM)

quote:

I would like to see Biblical evidence of the 6000 years from Genesis 1:1 to present age.


CRITICAL PATH FOR BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY

It's my understanding that Bishop Ussher's original work entitled The Annals of the World has been published in modern English. It should have copious Scriptural support for his timeline. Of course, not everyone agrees with the historical-grammatical interpretation of Genesis 1-11.



Okami -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 1:24:10 AM)

I myself think the flood was 10,000 years ago, so the earth wouldn't be 6,000.

I think the 6k earth comes from genealogies in the Bible being a strict father to son listing.
2k to Jesus, 2k to the flood, 2k to creation.

But, with "begat" and "son" being in question, there is leeway for more time pre-Abraham.
Then the whole "yowm" debate adding to creation time itself.


I think it's pretty reliable when it's shown that the Americas have been populated for 6k years, and Australia for 7-8k. Then you have the Egyptian empire's timeframe. The sphynx has obvious water erosion, placing it a couple thousand before them. It isn't such a large leap to assume a 10k year flood, which nullifies a 6k year earth.



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 6:56:27 AM)

ORIGINAL:Okami
quote:

But, with "begat" and "son" being in question, there is leeway for more time pre-Abraham.

Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. How does calling Seth Adam’s great-grandson rather than his son change the timeline?



PolarBear -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 11:02:37 AM)

Oh Uncle, this is too good ... just reverse the order of your two sentences and see how it reads and what it implies:

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

The most common accusation you will find here (although it is a bogus accusation) is that we say those who reject YEC are not really Christians.


quote:

You don’t have to go to a “non-Christian” site to hear that said. Many professing Christians looked down on those of us who take God at His word.


By saying "professing" Christians, aren't you basically saying right there that those who disagree with YEC are not necessarily Christians????



EverLearning -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 11:28:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PolarBear
By saying "professing" Christians, aren't you basically saying right there that those who disagree with YEC are not necessarily Christians????


You must be one of those paranoid OEC fellas. I have been told that YECs around these parts aren't insinuating anything, it is just paranoia. I would possibly believe that if I didn't know for sure that everyone is out to get me. [;)]



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 12:11:07 PM)

ORIGINAL:PolarBear
quote:

By saying "professing" Christians, aren't you basically saying right there that those who disagree with YEC are not necessarily Christians????

Of course. But then in the same sense I am saying that those who do agree with YEC are not necessarily Christians. All I am saying is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is a Christian. Do you think everyone in these forums who professes to be a Christian really is a Christian? If I had just said “Christians” rather than “professing Christians” you wouldn’t have had the knee-jerk reaction but then my statement wouldn’t have bee all inclusive of everyone here who claims to be a Christian.

You should have known better than to have asked that question because I have stated many times that the OET/YEC issue is not a salvation issue.
It is interesting to see the knee-jerk reactions though.



Aristocrat -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 12:15:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:yre15
quote:

was listening to a debate on a non Christian site and somebody said anybody who believed the earth was only 6000 yrs old must be a moron.

You don’t have to go to a “non-Christian” site to hear that said. Many professing Christians looked down on those of us who take God at His word.
The most common accusation you will find here (although it is a bogus accusation) is that we say those who reject YEC are not really Christians.

HERE is a good source for YEC arguments.


You don't take God at His word. You tie him to your yoke of intolerance for any view but yours.



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 12:29:45 PM)

ORIGINAL:aristocrat
quote:

You don't take God at His word. You tie him to your yoke of intolerance for any view but yours.

Thank you for providing us with the second most common false accusation leveled against YEC around these parts.



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 12:49:42 PM)

quote:

It is interesting to see the knee-jerk reactions though.
Yes, it's called paranoia.



Aristocrat -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 1:32:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:aristocrat
quote:

You don't take God at His word. You tie him to your yoke of intolerance for any view but yours.

Thank you for providing us with the second most common false accusation leveled against YEC around these parts.


This is not an accusation. This is recognition of opression. Jesus said His yoke was light, but your's is an anchor to the soul.



EverLearning -> RE: the earth (1/5/2008 3:24:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

It is interesting to see the knee-jerk reactions though.
Yes, it's called paranoia.


So it is paranoia when some in the YEC camp here are informed as to how their statements and tactics are seen yet they continue on the same course anyway? Meaning if one has been told that the way they state something comes across as meaning X then they state it exactly the same way again it is not paranoia to think that they are attempting to say X and exactly X. I know it is convenient and definitely an ingrained YEC tactic to discredit others (tear them down) in an attempt to discredit their message and calling us paranoid is yet another form of that. By all appearances YECs most important goal it the tearing down of others not the shoring up of anything.



Okami -> RE: the earth (1/6/2008 1:50:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:Okami
quote:

But, with "begat" and "son" being in question, there is leeway for more time pre-Abraham.

Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. How does calling Seth Adam’s great-grandson rather than his son change the timeline?


Why would it matter? It doesn't.
I wasn't talking about Adam and Seth.
But people look at genealogies and assume each name is a direct father/son relation, each being a generation of 40 years, thus dating the world from it.
"Begat" and "son of" can apply to ancestral relationships, not just direct ones. Since most of the traditions at that time would have been oral, it would have been much easier to remember key names rather than a bunch of nobodies.

I can go into detail and examples if you want, but a couple quickies you can use would be Matt 1:8 where is says "Joram begat Uzziah" , skipping 3 whole generations.
And then in Chron, you have "Shebuel son of Gershon son of Moses", having a 400 year spread.
The genealogy of Gen 5 is written strikingly similiar to the one given in Num 3 where it lists Amram's line. Unless someone is willing to accept that Moses had 8600 brothers and sisters, there is a pretty obvious spread of 300 years.

Using such cases as examples, people have figured you can get a couple thousand years between Noah and Abraham.



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/6/2008 3:45:01 PM)

ORIGINAL:Okami
quote:

Using such cases as examples, people have figured you can get a couple thousand years between Noah and Abraham.

Don’t they gotta ignore Genesis 11 to do that though?



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/6/2008 3:50:24 PM)

quote:

You should have known better than to have asked that question because I have stated many times that the OET/YEC issue is not a salvation issue.
Why can't you accept this claim at face value, EverLearning? If it is because you choose to see our "statements and tactics" in some alternative fashion, then I call that paranoia. If for some other reason, please enlighten uncle and me. Because, frankly, I'm getting a little tired of your whining.

For the record: I do not personally feel, nor do I find any Scriptural support, that one's understanding and belief of the age of the universe has any direct bearing on one's salvation - past, present or future.



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/6/2008 4:36:56 PM)

ORIGINAL:drmark
quote:

For the record: I do not personally feel, nor do I find any Scriptural support, that one's understanding and belief of the age of the universe has any direct bearing on one's salvation - past, present or future.

Are you trying to claim that belief in a 6,000 year old earth isn’t required for salvation?
Doesn’t this tie what you believe about the age of the earth to salvation?
“But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” – Romans 10:8-10



softrain -> RE: the earth (1/6/2008 4:50:55 PM)

What if the substance the earth is made out of is millions of years old, but the earth itself was formed from it 6,000 years ago...possible?



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/6/2008 10:15:47 PM)

quote:

What if the substance the earth is made out of is millions of years old, but the earth itself was formed from it 6,000 years ago...possible?
Not according to the plain sense, historical-grammatical reading of Genesis 1:3-13. Energy ("let there be light") which is interchangeable with matter was created on Day 1, while the planetary formation of earth (let the water be gathered and dry ground appear) occurred on Day 3. I see no way to account for millions of years from the text.

Now, if you're referring to the "formless, empty, void earth" in verse 2, then more intriguing interpretations of the "substance of the earth" are possible. Nevertheless, time as we know it in reality did not begin until God spoke light into existence as energy travelling through space (the heavens). Since light had no velocity until it was created, there was no time to be measured in the yet-to-be-created universe of verse 3, so "millions of years" is meaningless until the first day of creation.



cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 4:14:57 AM)

Greetings 90% lied! I would not be able to dispute any age theory regarding Science by using the bible at all. No need to be confused about that. The bible says that the earth was already formless and void in the first verse before the creation is even given. Therefore, it is common ignorance and hypocrisy on the part of so-called scientists who are supposed to be looking for factual accounts to ignore ancient literature that is time tested and held with honor throughout generations of people. If a social scientist told me that it is not the human experience to have faith, I would deny them tenure. It is an essential component to the human existence on earth as evidenced by history to have religion. We see that some choose to have the opiate religion of the people known as science theory. We seek Truth and fact. Science states only theory because they have not observed the process in full directly in a laboratory in many cases; especially when we speak about dating methods for the earths crust. That the earth is ancient, in no way contradicts belief in God. That the universe exists; is every Good proof that there must be something Greater.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ninetypercentlied

Hi!

So, without using the bible, can someone please answer a question for me?

The Earth's estimated age is about 4.5 billion years. I'm confused, if all of these methods of science provide a vast array of tangible proof that it's ballparked at around 4.5 billion years old, and we have found fossils of species that did not co-exist with humans... doesn't that contradict the bible's version of how things went down?

Did God lie to me?



EverLearning -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 6:59:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
If for some other reason, please enlighten uncle and me. Because, frankly, I'm getting a little tired of your whining.


I laid it out for you earlier how you came across as questioning my faith. Now if you want to call it whining go ahead.

quote:


For the record: I do not personally feel, nor do I find any Scriptural support, that one's understanding and belief of the age of the universe has any direct bearing on one's salvation - past, present or future.


When i mentioned in another thread that the belief in a 6000 year old earth does not affect the Bible's salvation message and your words were "are you sure about that" and posted an article to rebut me so either you do believe that the age is necessary to the salvation message or it isn't but forgive me if i call you on it when you try to have it both ways.



PolarBear -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 11:44:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:PolarBear
quote:

By saying "professing" Christians, aren't you basically saying right there that those who disagree with YEC are not necessarily Christians????

Of course. But then in the same sense I am saying that those who do agree with YEC are not necessarily Christians. All I am saying is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is a Christian. Do you think everyone in these forums who professes to be a Christian really is a Christian? If I had just said “Christians” rather than “professing Christians” you wouldn’t have had the knee-jerk reaction but then my statement wouldn’t have bee all inclusive of everyone here who claims to be a Christian.

You should have known better than to have asked that question because I have stated many times that the OET/YEC issue is not a salvation issue.
It is interesting to see the knee-jerk reactions though.

Hmm actually I guess you're right. I was equating your words "those of us who take God at His word" to "YEC". I of course also take God at His word and believe in OEC. Since I can use that meaning of it, I guess the phrase "professing Christians" makes some sense. Sorry ....



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI