How old is the earth and the sun?

[AlexDTX]

So... you're claiming that the creatures in the fossil record all existed within the last 6000 years?

Yes, and there are fossils with organic material still in tact, which means they were fossilized recently. Likewise, in Glenn Rose, Texas there are human fossil footprints inside dinosaur fossil footprints.

 

[katerinah1947]

Could it be NASA is just being Honest, and know for a fact the Sun does indeed rotate above the Earth?

It's crazy, I know, but...........

Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
Psa 19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
Psa 19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

The language in Scripture indicates God is just telling us it's the Sun around it's circuit. There is a end, and it starts over again.

We get into these big theological debates about when to take scripture literal. By His Stripes we are healed. If you believe God heals, then it's physical, if you don't believe it's God's will to always heal, then it's spiritual.

Jesus quoted Abraham in Hell. If you don't like the idea of Eternal punishment, then you say it was a parable and Jesus lied about what Abraham said.

I always have taken the Word Literally, until I run into Ecc 1:5. It's just symbolic language, you get up at sun rise, we know for a fact the Earth is Rotating.

Until I questioned what fact makes me not take God's Word literal?

The fact I prayed and did not get healed? Could it be I need to seek more and learn, or am I an expert at praying and if it did not work, then God's fault?

The fact I don't like the idea of eternal punishment? Could it be Jesus would never misquote someone? Could it be the same Greek Word used for Eternal punishment is the same one that described God as Eternal. I can't pick and choose.

The Fact I always have been told the Earth rotates, from the same folk that wants me to believe I came from an ape?

Psa 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

If God said the Earth cannot be moved, is it still flying through space at 67,000 mph around a sun that is traveling at 45,000 mph through the Milky, and rotating all at the same time. Would that be considered moving?

The higher we go up, the curvature of the Earth should become more noticeable.
NASA Proved that Theory WRONG!!!!

View attachment 166628
World Record Jump. 24 Miles up.

View attachment 166629
V2 Rocket 1946 65 Miles up.

One can say they just used a fish eye lense, fair enough, but NASA has yet to show us what it actually looks like up there.
Not one picture of the earth is the same, not one picture of Mars is the same, and NASA unashamedly says they pices together all earth photo's from many, then color's and textures them for us, so they are more accurate. Not my words, theirs.

So, when they tell me the Earth is Older than 6,000 years, I have to consider who They are.

Scripture is good enough for me, but if you can wade through the garbage about Satanic cover ups, and Evil free masons, There is science to prove scripture is true. Even Russia of 2015 has demanded NASA find all the Apollo mission data they conveniently lost. All 9,000 boxes of it.

 

[AlexDTX]

2 Peter 3:8World English Bible (WEB)
8 But don’t forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This is scripture and not a 24 hour day.

This is not a statement by Peter that the Bible means a day is a thousand years, it means that time is meaningless to God since He is separate from God. The context of the statement is a reference to how long God is willing to wait for people to repent before bringing judgement.

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved to fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Proof texting is a deadly hermeneutic.

 

[benelchi]

​

If you say so.

"Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
And Leah's eyes were weak, but Rachel became beautiful of form and face."

Even weak is a sad translation. "rak: tender, delicate, soft"

As long as we ignore that Rachel was the younger and never grew up we can ignore a proper translation. So Leah had tender or delicate eyes - we would say beautiful eyes (a pretty face), but Rachel grew up to be beautiful of both form and face.

"When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman's hand, he did not find her.
He asked the men of her place, saying, "Where is the temple prostitute who came to be by the road at Enaim?"

You for some reason keep insisting they spoke modern English with modern phrases.

"So Moses issued a command, and a proclamation was circulated throughout the camp, saying, "Let no man or woman any longer perform work for the contributions of the sanctuary." Thus the people were restrained from bringing any more.
For the material they had became sufficient and more than enough for all the work, to perform it."

It is to fall out, come to pass, become, be. - hayah

​

Besides the fact that the context doesn't permit the idea of "becoming" rather than being, it is also an idea that has been rejected by translators for over 2000 years of translation history. To accept your proposal would require one to reject the understanding of translators for over 2000 years. Here are just a few to check.


ASV Genesis 29:17 But Rachel was beautiful and well favored.

CSB Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was shapely and beautiful.

ESV Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was beautiful in form and appearance.

GNV Genesis 29:17 but Rahel was beautifull and faire.

JPS Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.

KJV Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

LXE Genesis 29:17 But Rachel was beautiful in appearance, and exceedingly fair in countenance.

NAS Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was beautiful of form and face.

NET Genesis 29:17 but Rachel had a lovely figure and beautiful appearance.

NIV Genesis 29:17 but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful.

NIV1984 Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was lovely in form, and beautiful.

NJB Genesis 29: but Rachel was shapely and beautiful,

NKJ Genesis 29: but Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance.

NLT Genesis 29:17 but Rachel had a beautiful figure and a lovely face.

NRS Genesis 29:17 and Rachel was graceful and beautiful.

OKE Genesis 29:17 but Rahel was admirable in form, and beautiful in aspect.

TNK Genesis 29:17 Rachel was shapely and beautiful.

YLT Genesis 29:17 and Rachel hath been fair of form and fair of appearance.

LUO Genesis 29:17 Rahel war hübsch und schön.

BGT Genesis 29:17οἱδὲὀφθαλμοὶΛειαςἀσθενεῖςΡαχηλδὲκαλὴτῷεἴδεικαὶὡραίατῇὄψει

SRV Genesis 29:17 pero Rachêl era de lindo semblante y de hermoso parecer.

VULM Genesis 29:17 Rahel decora facie et venusto aspectu

NETS Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was shapely in figure and lovely in appearance.

They did not speak the same as we do now - they used different syntax than we do and different ways of phrasing things in their language.

​

No, comparing them we can see they were not consistent at all.
No, in Jeremiah 4:23 they incorrectly translate it as they did in Genesis. Do you believe the land of Judah was "formless and void" after it's destruction as it was in the beginning supposedly made of water????? The mountains were quaking while in Genesis supposedly there were no mountains during this condition of formlessness and void. Or is it much more likely that it "became desolate and waste" after it's destruction????? And earthquakes still abounded? And there was no man and all the birds had fled? Does this sound like a primordial state to you or describing the destruction that "became" upon Judah?

I guess if you want to belief it existed in the same state as the earth existed in before God acted (supposedly formless and void) - composed of only water, you are certainly welcome to that belief - but I seriously doubt if one person is going to agree with you.

My statement had nothing to do with the prior state of the land, it had to do with the lack of the verb "to be" in the text.
Because I actually read the Hebrew text, it was easy to recognize that the verb היה (to be) was not even in this text, and because I actually read the Hebrew text, I actually understand the syntax differences used in Hebrew. One of the common differences is that the verb "to be" is often implicit, and so while in an English translation it is inserted into the text to meet English grammar rules, it is frequently omitted (as it is in Jer. 4:23). THE VERB YOU ARE TRYING TO RE-DEFINE IS NOT EVEN IN THIS VERSE!

ראיתי את־הארץ והנה־תהו ובהו ואל־השׁמים ואין אורם׃ (Jer. 4:23)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A day is as a thousand years to God - because God is energy and energy is what causes clocks to slow. A day is as a thousand years to God because time is completely meaningless to a being which is eternal, it only has meaning to things which are finite in existence.

The verse is not telling us that a 24 hour period is like a thousand years, it is telling us that it is meaningless to God since God is eternal. There is no difference to God in a 24 hour period or a period which lasts 1,000 years since He is not subject to time. He is eternal.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hmm want to take that subject to another thread and debate perhaps. As I would argue the bible does not teach of a rapture. That thinking didn't arise until 1830 when Darby decided it was true based on a prophecy a Scotish girl gave when sick with a fever. He then took scripture piece meal to form the Rapture/Tribulation theology. There is no writings by the early Church Fathers teaching about a rapture. Also, there are different timelines developed to explain how things will happen in the end times. But above all your statement of WW3 and the Nuclear bombs is pure speculation and there is no scriptures in the prophecies saying Christ will return after a third world war.

Yes there is a forum for that discussion. The point was I said that the Bible does not contradict Science and people tried to claim that the Bible contradicts itself. So I was just answering a question about that. Maybe we need to keep the discussion based more on showing that there is no contradiction between science and the Bible.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

​

Besides the fact that the context doesn't permit the idea of "becoming" rather than being, it is also an idea that has been rejected by translators for over 2000 years of translation history. To accept your proposal would require one to reject the understanding of translators for over 2000 years. Here are just a few to check.


ASV Genesis 29:17 But Rachel was beautiful and well favored.

CSB Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was shapely and beautiful.

ESV Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was beautiful in form and appearance.

GNV Genesis 29:17 but Rahel was beautifull and faire.

JPS Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.

KJV Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

LXE Genesis 29:17 But Rachel was beautiful in appearance, and exceedingly fair in countenance.

NAS Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was beautiful of form and face.

NET Genesis 29:17 but Rachel had a lovely figure and beautiful appearance.

NIV Genesis 29:17 but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful.

NIV1984 Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was lovely in form, and beautiful.

NJB Genesis 29: but Rachel was shapely and beautiful,

NKJ Genesis 29: but Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance.

NLT Genesis 29:17 but Rachel had a beautiful figure and a lovely face.

NRS Genesis 29:17 and Rachel was graceful and beautiful.

OKE Genesis 29:17 but Rahel was admirable in form, and beautiful in aspect.

TNK Genesis 29:17 Rachel was shapely and beautiful.

YLT Genesis 29:17 and Rachel hath been fair of form and fair of appearance.

LUO Genesis 29:17 Rahel war hübsch und schön.

BGT Genesis 29:17οἱδὲὀφθαλμοὶΛειαςἀσθενεῖςΡαχηλδὲκαλὴτῷεἴδεικαὶὡραίατῇὄψει

SRV Genesis 29:17 pero Rachêl era de lindo semblante y de hermoso parecer.

VULM Genesis 29:17 Rahel decora facie et venusto aspectu

NETS Genesis 29:17 but Rachel was shapely in figure and lovely in appearance.





My statement had nothing to do with the prior state of the land, it had to do with the lack of the verb "to be" in the text.
Because I actually read the Hebrew text, it was easy to recognize that the verb היה (to be) was not even in this text, and because I actually read the Hebrew text, I actually understand the syntax differences used in Hebrew. One of the common differences is that the verb "to be" is often implicit, and so while in an English translation it is inserted into the text to meet English grammar rules, it is frequently omitted (as it is in Jer. 4:23). THE VERB YOU ARE TRYING TO RE-DEFINE IS NOT EVEN IN THIS VERSE!

ראיתי את־הארץ והנה־תהו ובהו ואל־השׁמים ואין אורם׃ (Jer. 4:23)

And so quote all the incorrect translations of the Hebrew you want - yet none of them agree with the meaning of hayah.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm
hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be

It is the state something falls into or becomes - not the present condition it exists in.

hâyâh, haw-yaw; a primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):—beacon, × altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, × have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, × use.

I agree that every translator translates it incorrectly based upon pre-conceived beliefs. Fitting the translation to their beliefs instead of their beliefs to the translation.

You should read this.

http://www.watchman-nee.nl/hayah.pdf

 

[katerinah1947]

No, you have misunderstood. The only point of my post is that there is an unspecified time period between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. I believe that everything from v.2 and following is literal. Each day is 24 hours.

Hi,

Okay, and without any objections to hypothetically taking your position as you stated, consider this.

Why is it said, when God is Light, among all the other attributes of God and in the multiple ways that can be taken in context, that with no sun, when God is light, that there can be no day and no night in what is called the beginning.

Cannot God in that scenario have been there, and He is the light for the time period called the day on the earth?

Can also the opposite side of the planet, not be what is called night as God looks upon that earth?

If that is possible, then how can anyone say, there is no light without a sun, and the earth could never have existed without a sun first?

Sure, with Genesis 1:28, in there and me being a trained and honest to God, (meaning I lie less, because I am afraid of God, of upsetting Him, with me, by hurting His feelings. Lies, I think do that. I think they do that, we we lie. I think it hurts Him, as it is a flaw in us, each time we are willing to do that, or even maybe do it out of fear.), So, I still, have to consider all the data, as I am a scientist of sorts, but also a Scientist of sorts.

Until someone can prove the earth is flat, objectively, by a test, such as taking a flight in a plane, or proves the earth is not old, with a test sufficient to counter what is in science today, even if they are right, I DO NOT HAVE PERMISSIONS FROM GOD, to violate Genesis 1:28, nor the summary of science as found in Romans 13:1-5.

As far as anyone trying to invalidate a round earth, the sun being more stationary than the earth, a young earth being made in accordance with our now literal translations of the Old Testament as though we made no errors, usually those not in the field, of course leaving out naturals, can not know if what the scientists say is true or not, as it is too hard to do that, without tons of exposure to their words and ways.

All of what you or anyone believes in Christianity, apart from the central issue of God and Jesus, it allowed, as was well stated in Mark 9:38-42.

So, what you believe, I am commanded to not oppose you.

And, oh yes, I would love for lots of things to be true literally. Biblically though, is it not so, that even life, death, fool have very alternate meanings from ours?

If God calls death not death to us as we think of it, but really life, is that not a radical departure, from the way we think on earth?

Where, even with the devil, does God say that He will destroy satan, both body and soul? Where does He say that He will destroy body and soul, rather than can. He says it can be done. Where does He say anywhere that He has and is doing that?

Death to us, is destruction of us, on earth. What does the term death mean to God, some of the time, in the Bible?

And, if death has an alternate meaning than the one we literally give it, cannot it be the same with day?

LOVE,

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, and there are fossils with organic material still in tact, which means they were fossilized recently.

That is an unsupported claim.

Likewise, in Glenn Rose, Texas there are human fossil footprints inside dinosaur fossil footprints.

Those were debunked a long time ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

More to the point, no one has ever found a human fossil that dates to that time period.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes there is a forum for that discussion. The point was I said that the Bible does not contradict Science and people tried to claim that the Bible contradicts itself. So I was just answering a question about that. Maybe we need to keep the discussion based more on showing that there is no contradiction between science and the Bible.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[bhsmte]

No, but if your at a christian site and argue with people because you want your non-christians beliefs to be accepted, then your a troll. I mean why else would you fight people that your non-believer view is right? Surely there are non-believer forums to hang out at and to talk down about christians. Though thinking about it I suppose maybe you are here to convert people away from christianity, just as we try to convert non-christians into christians.

I've said before I'm fine with non-believers who are here because they are curious in christianity (and possibly want to be one). And even to some degree non-believers who come here but can have civil debates without mocking christians.

I have no desire to have a believer change their view because I disagree with them, none.

I find discussion with people who disagree with you, more enlightening, than doing the same with others who agree. Also, I never challenge one's belief, unless they claim they are better than I am, I am being led by evil and or they misrepresent well evidenced reality to protect their belief.

If it bothers you so much non believers are allowed on this part of the site, why don't you stick to the Christian only section?

 

[katerinah1947]

I have no desire to have a believer change their view because I disagree with them, none.

I find discussion with people who disagree with you, more enlightening, than doing the same with others who agree. Also, I never challenge one's belief, unless they claim they are better than I am, I am being led by evil and or they misrepresent well evidenced reality to protect their belief.

If it bothers you so much non believers are allowed on this part of the site, why don't you stick to the Christian only section?

Hi,

Why don't you try to see things from their vantage point?

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

Why don't you try to seeing things from their vantage point?

LOVE,

I do.

I will say again and my posting history will support this:

I never question or challenge someone's faith belief, unless; they claim their belief makes them superior to me, they claim they have objective evidence to support their belief (then I ask to see it) and or, they misrepresent well evidenced science, to protect their personal faith belief.

 

[katerinah1947]

I do.

I will say again and my posting history will support this:

I never question or challenge someone's faith belief, unless; they claim their belief makes them superior to me, they claim they have objective evidence to support their belief (then I ask to see it) and or, they misrepresent well evidenced science, to protect their personal faith belief.

Hi,

Prove that you do, now. What does 'In The Spirit' mean and how is it to be used and understood by those with it?

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

Prove that you do, now. What does 'In The Spirit' mean and how is it to be used and understood by those with it?

LOVE,

The proof of what I state is in my posting history.

In regards to your question, I answered the question last night, go back and look.

 

[Loudmouth]

God gave us science and God gave us the Bible, so they really can not contradict because God can not contradict Himself.

It would appear that you worship a book as God.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

So there are two views here on the age of the sun and the earth, one is Biblical, using only the present understandings of those words and phrases so far, and the other on is Biblical also, using only the present understanding of those ideas, measurements and experiments, so far.

The first group, reads the Bible and says the way it is translated, is the way it is. The second group does not necessarily read the Bible, but are following the Bible as it is said to do in 'Subdueing the earth' in Genesis 1:28, and greatly summarized in what our Governement says and does.

This is a translation problem, and if they are not against us, then they are for us, on both sides of the issue.

Is it not said in Proverbs, that to hide something, is what God does?

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

So there are two views here on the age of the sun and the earth, one is Biblical, using only the present understandings of those words and phrases so far, and the other on is Biblical also, using only the present understanding of those ideas, measurements and experiments, so far.

The first group, reads the Bible and says the way it is translated, is the way it is. The second group does not necessarily read the Bible, but are following the Bible as it is said to do in 'Subdueing the earth' in Genesis 1:28, and greatly summarized in what our Governement says and does.

This is a translation problem, and if they are not against us, then they are for us, on both sides of the issue.

Is it not said in Proverbs, that to hide something, is what God does?

LOVE,

What is your belief, as to the age of the earth and sun?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you question Gerald Schroeder PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences from MIT? Or Kurt Wise PhD in geology from Harvard University? Do you question the degree of Geneticist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project?

I find it interesting that you claim there are no contradictions and then put Wise and Collins in the same list. Wise has clearly stated that the Bible can not accommodate evolution or an old Earth. The only reason that Wise rejects evolution is because of his religious beliefs.

". . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."
https://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php

Even more, Wise admits that he could care less if science contradicts the Bible:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
https://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php

Collins is adamant that the evidence supports an old earth and evolution. Care to explain this rather obvious contradiction?

 

[Loudmouth]

The first group, reads the Bible and says the way it is translated, is the way it is. The second group does not necessarily read the Bible, but are following the Bible as it is said to do in 'Subdueing the earth' in Genesis 1:28, and greatly summarized in what our Governement says and does.

If the Bible is true, shouldn't you be able to look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion without ever reading the Bible?

Is it not said in Proverbs, that to hide something, is what God does?

LOVE,

If YEC is true, then God is not hiding something. God created fake evidence just to fool us, quite the opposite of hiding something.