"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[dad]

Hello dad. Nice to meet you.

If what you say is true, then there is no need to confine discussions to Genesis 1, as was suggested.

That was my point. I take it you agree?

Cheers
S.

Hi. Since the whole bible agrees with Gen 1 as well as science, (as far as they can go), no I would not confine anything to one chapter. Is that agreeing with you?

 

[Sophophile]

Hi. Since the whole bible agrees with Gen 1 as well as science, (as far as they can go), no I would not confine anything to one chapter. Is that agreeing with you?

Yes, we agree that discussion of creation should not be confined to Genesis 1. We also agree that, for proper interpretation, the Bible needs to be treated as a self-consistent whole.

I also note that AV1611VET does not agree with this in the specific context of discussing and defending "embedded age".

However, just to be crystal clear about my position, I do not believe Genesis 1, properly interpreted, supports a young universe, particularly in the light of Romans 1:20.

Regards
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, just to be crystal clear about my position, I do not believe Genesis 1, properly interpreted, supports a young universe, particularly in the light of Romans 1:20.

And I don't believe in a young universe, either --- so are we on the same page here?

And Genesis 1 - (or the entire Bible, Itself) - does not support the universe's age --- science does.

The Bible only gives the first --- (let me say it again) --- the first 4000 years of the universe's history, not the last 4000 of 6000 --- like you guys think.

And as far as Romans 1:20 is concerned, I can use it as well to justify embedded age.

 

[dad]

Yes, we agree that discussion of creation should not be confined to Genesis 1. We also agree that, for proper interpretation, the Bible needs to be treated as a self-consistent whole.

I also note that AV1611VET does not agree with this in the specific context of discussing and defending "embedded age".

However, just to be crystal clear about my position, I do not believe Genesis 1, properly interpreted, supports a young universe, particularly in the light of Romans 1:20.

Regards
S.

I think we have three distinct, yet similar positions. And, no doubt, there are variations in these, for many other people.
I can agree with some embedded age, in that trees looked old, etc. But I actually tend to believe these days, that trees were planted, as seeds, and grew fast. Adam would not have looked old to an observer at creation, either. Only to a modern observer, that measures age by modern standards! I doubt even light woulld have looked old from far stars to an observer, because the observer would be aware of how light worked at the time! Only in assuming a modern present based perspective does the problem exist, and then, only inside the head. No one was there that we know of living today, to observe creation.

The wonders of God were manifested in many ways since the beginning, as the verse says. It does not mean they were manifested the same exact way, in the same conditions on earth, and always will be.
The context of the verse is referring to the ungodly, which, it mentions right after, get to putting animals on par or ahead of man, liike evolutionary fables do. They are without excuse to do that. I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only in assuming a modern present based perspective does the problem exist, and then, only inside the head.

I couldn't agree more, dad ---

I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the ones who don't believe in a literal Genesis.

Failure to take Genesis 1 literally leads to all kinds of junk theology.

p.s. Check out the TAGS at the bottom of the page --- ain't they a riot?

 

[Cabal]

I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the ones who don't believe in a literal Genesis.

How exactly is inventing an embedded age scenario less complicated than accepting that if something is a particular age, then it just IS a particular age?

It seems to me that a literal reading requires a lot more workarounds to match up with reality?

 

[gaara4158]

I couldn't agree more, dad ---

I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the ones who don't believe in a literal Genesis.

Failure to take Genesis 1 literally leads to all kinds of junk theology.

p.s. Check out the TAGS at the bottom of the page --- ain't they a riot?

I think you're a presuppositionalist and you don't know it.

In any case, the tags are the result of you failing to answer our questions and yet still acting like we're the ones in denial.

 

[Cabal]

In any case, the tags are the result of you failing to answer our questions and yet still acting like we're the ones in denial.

Finally, a definition for "embedded wharrgarbl"

 

[AV1611VET]

In any case, the tags are the result of you failing to answer our questions and yet still acting like we're the ones in denial.

You know perfectly well why I'm "failing" to answer your questions --- I've been saying for over two years why I'm not going to answer these questions in a thread like this.

In fact, I have to believe you guys knew I wouldn't, beforehand.

ETA: Don't think I'm not fighting temptation not to. In fact, I started to type a reply, then ended up deleting it so I could stay true to my teaching - (viz. never stray from Genesis 1).

 

[pgp_protector]

You know perfectly well why I'm "failing" to answer your questions --- I've been saying for over two years why I'm not going to answer these questions in a thread like this.

In fact, I have to believe you guys knew I wouldn't, beforehand.

ETA: Don't think I'm not fighting temptation not to. In fact, I started to type a reply, then ended up deleting it so I could stay true to my teaching - (viz. never stray from Genesis 1).

QV

 

[ragarth]

I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the ones who don't believe in a literal Genesis.

in reference to my divinity:
That's like saying "I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the one's who don't believe I'm God."

in reference to pancake awesomeness:
"I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the ones who don't believe in pancake yumminess."

in reference to some furries:
"I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the ones that are human."

 

[AV1611VET]

QV

Ya --- don't worry --- shortly I'm gonna just delete all my threads but a couple and ditch the read-only mode for a couple of weeks.

These threads of yours [plural] are too tempting to stay away from.

Out of sight --- out of mind.

 

[gaara4158]

You know perfectly well why I'm "failing" to answer your questions --- I've been saying for over two years why I'm not going to answer these questions in a thread like this.

In fact, I have to believe you guys knew I wouldn't, beforehand.

ETA: Don't think I'm not fighting temptation not to. In fact, I started to type a reply, then ended up deleting it so I could stay true to my teaching - (viz. never stray from Genesis 1).

Yes, of course I know perfectly well why you refuse to answer our questions. Because you can't.
Yes, we knew 1 of 2 things would happen; either you'd make up an even more absurd story and tell our objections to take a hike, or you'd simply refuse to answer our questions for some absurd reason.
Well, looks like your "teaching" has cost you yet another argument.

 

[consol]

I was always told never to mock the afflicted, so I'll keep shut.

 

[MoonLancer]

You know perfectly well why I'm "failing" to answer your questions --- I've been saying for over two years why I'm not going to answer these questions in a thread like this.

In fact, I have to believe you guys knew I wouldn't, beforehand.

ETA: Don't think I'm not fighting temptation not to. In fact, I started to type a reply, then ended up deleting it so I could stay true to my teaching - (viz. never stray from Genesis 1).

you seem perfectly willing to claim the world was created 6100 years ago, yet their are no claims in Gen1 to support this. So your doing a pretty bad job confining the argument to Gen1

By not responding directly to thread your basically saying that Embedded age is a derelict that can no longer be defended.

 

[MoonLancer]

Ya --- don't worry --- shortly I'm gonna just delete all my threads but a couple

why, so your own words don't come back to haunt you? so you rewrite history? Are you ashamed of what you have said in the past?

 

[AV1611VET]

you seem perfectly willing to claim the world was created 6100 years ago, yet their are no claims in Gen1 to support this.

Do you know the difference between defending the CREATION WEEK and defending the amount of time this universe has been in existence?

Let me spell it out for you:

• Creation Week = 6 solar days = Genesis 1
• Total time universe has been in operation = 6100 years = Genesis-Revelation + 2000 years of secular history

 

[AV1611VET]

why, so your own words don't come back to haunt you? so you rewrite history? Are you ashamed of what you have said in the past?

I don't think I have any questions outstanding, MoonLancer --- in my opinion, I've answered them all at least twice --- some thirty times or more.

 

[BananaSlug]

And I don't believe in a young universe, either --- so are we on the same page here?

Yes you do. 4.5billion "embedded age" with 6100 "existential age" = YEC

And Genesis 1 - (or the entire Bible, Itself) - does not support the universe's age --- science does.

Genesis actually never specifically says the universe's or the earth's age. It's all based on flawed genealogies done by a Christian Archibishop James Ussher.

The Bible only gives the first --- (let me say it again) --- the first 4000 years of the universe's history, not the last 4000 of 6000 --- like you guys think.

4004B.C. Creation date + 2009 = 6012 years ago. Your math is wrong.

And as far as Romans 1:20 is concerned, I can use it as well to justify embedded age.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, Romans 1:20

18God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. Hebrews 6:18

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began. Titus 1:2

God is not a man, that He should lie; Numbers 23:19

It is totally contrary to His Divine Nature to deal in falsehoods.
It is His Nature to always speak the Truth. ​

I can use the Bible to show that "embedded age" is contrary to God's nature. Remember the OP? It shows that these little things called fossils show a history. I would still like for you to explain why fossils are found in rock older that 6000 years. Only 6000 years of actual history, 600 million years of fossil history.

If the earth was created in Genesis 1 in 4004 B.C. with 4.5 billion years of "embedded age," then the 250 million year old rock was created in 4004 B.C. Said 250 million year old rock has 250 million year old fossils. Care to explain, especially since my question does deal with Genesis 1?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes you do. 4.5billion "embedded age" with 6100 "existential age" = YEC

No, I don't ---

YECs believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 4.6 billion years calculated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating.

Let me repeat: the earth is 4.57 billion years old --- that contradicts what I highlighted in red above.

Genesis actually never specifically says the universe's or the earth's age.

No kidding?

It's all based on flawed genealogies done by a Christian Archibishop James Ussher.

Then get out your calculator and do it yourself --- report back when you have the updated figure.

4004B.C. Creation date + 2009 = 6012 years ago. Your math is wrong.

Thanks for the correct --- the universe has been functioning in less time than I thought.

I can use the Bible to show that "embedded age" is contrary to God's nature.

Uh-huh --- and I'm Genghis Khan.

Remember the OP? It shows that these little things called fossils show a history.

No, these little things called fossils do not show a history. Just like skeletons in a graveyard don't show a thing (other than the fact that death is real), fossils don't show a thing --- and they aren't even skeletons --- they're impressions of things.

I would still like for you to explain why fossils are found in rock older that 6000 years.

Because they're found in rock older than 6000 years --- that's why.

And until you learn that Adam and Eve lived on a planet that was 4.57 billion years old (minus 6012 years) --- and stop calling me a YEC --- you're going to have this problem.

Only 6000 years of actual history, 600 million years of fossil history.

Again, even skeletons in a graveyard can't prove when the graveyard was built; and there is no such a thing as 600 million years of fossil "history".

If the earth was created in Genesis 1 in 4004 B.C. with 4.5 billion years of "embedded age," then the 250 million year old rock was created in 4004 B.C.

Yup.

Said 250 million year old rock has 250 million year old fossils.

You mean imprints of leaves or something?

If I went out and imprinted a leaf on a 30-million-year old rock, would you assume a 30-million-year history?

Care to explain, especially since my question does deal with Genesis 1?

No, it doesn't --- but I'm tired of hearing you guys beg.