Creation Date

[inquiring mind]

Of course you don't know this or have any meaningful example coz you made it up so as to clain hypoicrisy

Science is so careful to define things to their advantage. Speculation seems to offend them, because it has no evidence, and yet their whole process begins with it. ‘Theories,’ on the other hand, are not speculative because there is evidence to verify them. And, if sufficient evidence is not found or the evidence is proven to have been interpreted incorrectly… then it still wasn’t speculation .

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, but they are the same thing to the fundy Christian, right?

Why not?

Indoctrination In:

Indoctrination Out:

 

[Astrid]

Science is so careful to define things to their advantage. Speculation seems to offend them, because it has no evidence, and yet their whole process begins with it. ‘Theories,’ on the other hand, are not speculative because there is evidence to verify them. And, if sufficient evidence is not found or the evidence is proven to have been interpreted incorrectly… then it still wasn’t speculation .

You have no idea what you are talking abou.

And btw gave no examples. Just fyi.

 

[Astrophile]

Who is usher

According to Aeons: The Search for the Beginning of Time (Fourth Estate, 2001) by Martin Gorst, James Ussher (1580-1656) was an Irish Protestant, the nephew of an Archdeacon of Dublin. He learnt Latin as a boy, entered Trinity College, Dublin, in 1593, and was ordained a priest in December 1601. In the course of his life he collected a library of about 10,000 books, which was donated to Trinity College after his death. He was appointed Archbishop of Armagh in January 1624. His book, The Annals of the World (published in two parts in 1650 and 1654), was 'a comprehensive history of ancient times, starting with the day of Creation and finishing in AD 70.' Ussher died on 21st March 1656, and received a state funeral in Westminster Abbey, to which Oliver Cromwell contributed £200.

 

[SelfSim]

Science is so careful to define things to their advantage. Speculation seems to offend them, because it has no evidence, and yet their whole process begins with it. ‘Theories,’ on the other hand, are not speculative because there is evidence to verify them. And, if sufficient evidence is not found or the evidence is proven to have been interpreted incorrectly… then it still wasn’t speculation .

You misuse the term speculation by failing to distinguish it from testable speculation, or more appropriately, hypotheses.

Until an hypothesis has been tested and the results are 'in', its hypothetical, y'know(?).

It doesn't matter how long it takes for an hypothesis to be tested in order to fully satisfy science's special purpose for it, which is to be of practical use.

Some hypotheses are already useful even when they haven't been tested yet (eg: the various Origin of Life hypotheses).

 

[Hans Blaster]

((And they also blame the weather on a transgender Jesus, known as El Niño and La Niña.))

You'll distort anything to get a jab at science. Sigh.

"El Niño" was named by Peruvian fishermen because the warm water off the coast peaks at Christmas. They named it "El Niño de Navidad" to _honor_ the Christ child, not to mock him.

Meteorologists realized that there was a whole weather pattern associated with that warm coastal Pacific water and all of these phenomena became known as "El Niño" (just "the Boy") collectively. A counter pattern was became know La Niña ("the Girl"). The correlation to another Pacific long term air pressure pattern (the Southern Oscillation) resulted in the pattern getting its full proper name "El Niño/Southern Oscillation" or ENSO.

At no point was there any reference to Jesus, except for the fisherman honoring him, and certainly not anything related to "transgenderism". Quit making things up to express your bigotry.

 

[SelfSim]

Why not?

Indoctrination In:

Indoctrination Out:

Ah dunno .. groan!
Its like you just can't live unless you can keep alive your stuggles in somehow 'proving' to yourself your supposed 'superiority' over related hominids ..(?)
Y'know .. like that somehow actually means something to everyone else?

 

[Yttrium]

How do you explain that they share less than 4% of their DNA with modern humans?

... Humans and neanderthals share 98.5% of DNA. Humans and chimpanzees even share 96% of DNA.

 

[Paul4JC]

God created the heavens, that is, the universe,

There is no "universe" or sol-ar system in the bible.

Kinda hard to date a flood when you can't
find any sign of it.

Deliberately! [2Pe 3:5a,6,7 NIV] 5 But they deliberately forget 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,

Do you believe a man named Moses wrote Genesis?

I wonder what your bible looks like....not a Bible

To plagiarize it.

Who plagiarized who? Nobody, it's all the same story that left Babel. Babel is key. [Gen 11:8-9 NIV] 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel--because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth. Everything got lost in translation.

All mythologies, which have much truth in them, start after Babel aka Eridu. All antediluvian history was destroyed 2Pet3:5. You don't have to be an archeologist or a scientist to see that our known history starts in Upper Mesopotamia where also Noah and "the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat." Gen8:4 Then moves down to Lower Mesopotamian (Abram of Ur in Sumer) and Eastern Mesopotamia/The Levant to Egypt, where the story of Joseph and Moses begins, even the story of the Israelites.

"The word “mesopotamia” is formed from the ancient words “meso,” meaning between or in the middle of, and “potamos,” meaning river. Situated in the fertile valleys between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the region is now home to modern-day Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and Syria. Map of Mesopotamia." Mesopotamia - HISTORY
What's overlooked is that these 2 of the first 4 rivers mentioned in the Bible. [Gen 2:14 NIV] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

It is rather silly to believe as a real event.

You sound like an unbeliever.

Do you really believe the earth existed prior to the Sun and our home galaxy, and more importantly, the entire universe?

Genesis says the earth is created before the Sun but there is no "home galaxy or universe." Those words are not in the Hebrew/Greek Bible.

They are figments of some scientists' imaginations

Yet you believe so many of their imaginations.

It reminds me of the Tower of Babel.

You are as confusing as Babel.

I am sure the creation did not just happen in six days.

God doesn't mean what he says?

But you're supposed to just take their word for it that it is a million years.

Millions of years and millions of light-years. Pick your poison. Billions of years and billions of galaxies away.

OP
[Heb 11:3 NIV] 3 By faith we understand that the aiōnas was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Strongs:
aión: a space of time, an age
Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aión
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')
Definition: a space of time, an age

An age is a limited space of time as are we Psa 90:10 in our years. As is the earth and the current age of creation 2Pet3:7. It's not billions of years and not endless space, people! We are at about 6,000 years. Maranatha, come Lord Jesus! 1Co 16:22

 

[Jonaitis]

Genesis says the earth is created before the Sun but there is no "home galaxy or universe."

We are at about 6,000 years.

Yikes. Are you also a flat-earther? I shouldn't be surprised, though, this is a forum on the internet, you get all sorts of beliefs on here...

 

[Astrid]

There is no "universe" or sol-ar system in the bible.

Deliberately! [2Pe 3:5a,6,7 NIV] 5 But they deliberately forget 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,

I wonder what your bible looks like....not a Bible

Who plagiarized who? Nobody, it's all the same story that left Babel. Babel is key. [Gen 11:8-9 NIV] 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel--because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth. Everything got lost in translation.

All mythologies, which have much truth in them, start after Babel aka Eridu. All antediluvian history was destroyed 2Pet3:5. You don't have to be an archeologist or a scientist to see that our known history starts in Upper Mesopotamia where also Noah and "the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat." Gen8:4 Then moves down to Lower Mesopotamian (Abram of Ur in Sumer) and Eastern Mesopotamia/The Levant to Egypt, where the story of Joseph and Moses begins, even the story of the Israelites.

You sound like an unbeliever.

Genesis says the earth is created before the Sun but there is no "home galaxy or universe." Those words are not in the Hebrew/Greek Bible.

Yet you believe so many of their imaginations.

You are as confusing as Babel.

God doesn't mean what he says?

Millions of years and millions of light-years. Pick your poison. Billions of years and billions of galaxies away.

OP
[Heb 11:3 NIV] 3 By faith we understand that the aiōnas was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Strongs:
aión: a space of time, an age
Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aión
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')
Definition: a space of time, an age

An age is a limited space of time as are we Psa 90:10 in our years. As is the earth and the current age of creation 2Pet3:7. It's not billions of years and not endless space, people! We are at about 6,000 years. Maranatha, come Lord Jesus! 1Co 16:22

You don't get the difference between forgotten and non-existent?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who plagiarized who?

Sumeria plagiarized Noah.

Egypt plagiarized Noah.

China plagiarized Noah.

And that's just for starters.

Nobody, it's all the same story that left Babel.

No, it isn't.

Not even close.

Sumeria's protagonist was Utnapishtim.

Egypt has Ra sending his daughter to destroy [only] part of the Earth.

China's protagonist is Gun, the prince of Chong.

In short, the details of the story are all quite different.

Babel is key.

...

Everything got lost in translation.

All mythologies, which have much truth in them, start after Babel aka Eridu.

And Noah's son Shem was right there to set the record straight -- right up to the time of Jacob.

I can see Shem telling Nimrod, "No, it wasn't Utnapishtim. It was Noah."

I can see Shem telling Mizraim, "No, it wasn't Ra sending his daughter. It was God sending the rain."

I can see Shem telling the Sinites, "No, it wasn't the prince of Chong. It was JEHOVAH."

Etc and so on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Strongs:

Wrong's Concordance can take a hike.

I'm more interested in what God had to say in English, than tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

 

[Halbhh]

There is no "universe"

What we see above -- the stars -- called the 'heavens' in Genesis chapter 1. God created all of it we read in the Gospel of John chapter 1.

Ussher seemed to assume a lot with his 4004 B.C. creation date (evidently based on the first day of creation week). Personally, I think Creation week was in a different time zone altogether from the one we know. For example, why would the days before Day 4 and the creation of the sun be the same length as we know them? And really, it was God’s work, so how could we assume to know the length of any of them anyway? And, as far as chronology back to Adam, that’s crossing Day 7 of Creation Week??? God said it was finished on Day 6 (but doesn’t say when He set it in motion that I can find), and Day 7 was a day of rest for Him, but never-the-less in the Creation week time zone. I’m not wanting to argue against YEC, or anything really, just curious what others think. Could the adherence to hard dates, even when they cross from our time zone to an unknown one, be a reason for the time problem when dating the Flood or archeological finds and making comparisons? I’m not saying the archeological dating is exact either, it’s generally all estimated. All I’m saying, for example, is that the Flood was before Egyptian dynasties, no matter what dates they’re thought to be, and whether they're based on an interpretation of biblical chronologies or archaeological finds. Evolutionists feel free to comment too.

Hello, I don't think we've ever talked (though I did write a post to you above, but you've got so many I don't expect you to read them all necessarily). If you wish to have this discussion among only believers there is a forum for that, if you didn't intend to argue with non believers. If you do post it in a Christians only section, it would be great to point out in the OP post (post #1) for the sake of other people (even if you already have it down, not everyone will) that we are all under the instruction of, must all adhere to, Romans 14 NIV.
And perhaps the best way to do that briefly is just to quote that key first verse:
Romans 14:1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.
(One should point out in the OP probably: "In other words, as soon as a Christian argues about how to guess at mere time duration -- for instance arguing for YEC against OEC or the other -- or any such disputable matters, in arguing they are already sinning. We aren't allowed to argue. We can discuss in a friendly way with those able to do so who don't become contentious.")

 

[Halbhh]

But the heart of the issue is WHY don’t they believe that the interpretation of the word day in the creation account is the same as every other use in the Old Testament? Why is the word “day” interpreted differently in the creation account than it is in every other time it is used in the Old Testament? When you get to the heart of the answer to that question you’ll see what I’m talking about. It always comes full circle back to science because there’s nothing in the scriptures that indicate a different definition of the word “day” in the creation account.

Oh, you are assuming (reasonably) I have that version of OEC as my theory. Actually I have a different one, where the days in Genesis 1 are 24 hour days basically, but nevertheless a (trivially) long time passes during the chapter. Of course, this isn't truly important in itself, to believers, except to a few who think it would disprove their doctrine and get upset about it. While I probably should not try to lay out extensively how non-24-hour days are one possible interpretation (since it isn't mine), I'm not even sure actually if I pointed out an instance of 'day' that clearly isn't 24 hour in another book/chapter, that might end up leading to arguing, which we are not allowed to do.

We have to obey the instruction to us of course about these discussions -- the length of the days is merely a disputable matter and not important for believers to correct each other on -- "Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters." (Romans 14) So, by the rule of Christ on us, we are not allowed to argue it, but could only have a friendly discussion if we are both able to each discuss it without any contentiousness, as we must take Romans 14 just as serious as we read in 1rst Corinthians 8 it is, which we fortunately (having all of us sinned at times) can confess and repent of -- 1rst John chapter 1 -- and are immediately cleansed and restored if we do confess. Praise the Lord.

 

[inquiring mind]

Hello, I don't think we've ever talked (though I did write a post to you above, but you've got so many I don't expect you to read them all necessarily). If you wish to have this discussion among only believers there is a forum for that, if you didn't intend to argue with non believers. If you do post it in a Christians only section, it would be great to point out in the OP post (post #1) for the sake of other people (even if you already have it down, not everyone will) that we are all under the instruction of, must all adhere to, Romans 14 NIV.
And perhaps the best way to do that briefly is just to quote that key first verse:
Romans 14:1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.
(One should point out in the OP probably: "In other words, as soon as a Christian argues about how to guess at mere time duration -- for instance arguing for YEC against OEC or the other -- or any such disputable matters, in arguing they are already sinning. We aren't allowed to argue. We can discuss in a friendly way with those able to do so who don't become contentious.")

Thank you, but I enjoy discussions with those of all persuasions, or even lack thereof. Also, I’ve stated many times that I don’t think we fully comprehend timelines (I don’t anyway), one way or the other, so the purpose of my OP was mainly to see what others thought instead of me defending (arguing) a position. Of course, a certain amount of commentary is almost impossible to avoid. Thanks again.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Oh, you are assuming (reasonably) I have that version of OEC as my theory. Actually I have a different one, where the days in Genesis 1 are 24 hour days basically, but nevertheless a (trivially) long time passes during the chapter. Of course, this isn't truly important in itself, to believers, except to a few who think it would disprove their doctrine and get upset about it. While I probably should not try to lay out extensively how non-24-hour days are one possible interpretation (since it isn't mine), I'm not even sure actually if I pointed out an instance of 'day' that clearly isn't 24 hour in another book/chapter, that might end up leading to arguing, which we are not allowed to do.

We have to obey the instruction to us of course about these discussions -- the length of the days is merely a disputable matter and not important for believers to correct each other on -- "Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters." (Romans 14) So, by the rule of Christ on us, we are not allowed to argue it, but could only have a friendly discussion if we are both able to each discuss it without any contentiousness, as we must take Romans 14 just as serious as we read in 1rst Corinthians 8 it is, which we fortunately (having all of us sinned at times) can confess and repent of -- 1rst John chapter 1 -- and are immediately cleansed and restored if we do confess. Praise the Lord.

Brother if I have offended you or anyone else in this discussion I sincerely apologize, it was not my intention. I usually try to include words indicating brotherly love in my posts but sometimes when I’m at work and trying to make a quick reply forget to do it and I understand that in text a person’s manner can often seem rude and discourteous. So please accept my sincere apology brother I only wanted to discuss why I believe it is important to believe in the literal interpretation of the creation account because in my experience on this subject the scriptures often take a back seat to science and I feel it is important for everyone to understand that the Bible is a spiritual supernatural book that is completely full of miracles that are not supposed to be explainable by science. So when we get hung up on apologetics trying to match the Bible with science it just doesn’t work because while we might be able to come up with theories that may appear to explain one or two miracles there will always be miracles in the Bible that just can’t be explained because they weren’t supposed to be. The whole point of God performing miracles was to show His power and glory to man by performing impossible feats in order to bring people to repentance and to strengthen our trust in Him. I think a lot of people get hung up on trying to defend the attacks on God’s miracles when unbelievers use science to disprove the validity of the scriptures and to me the best defense is to point out the fact that miracles are not supposed to be supported by science. If they were then they would cease to be miracles and it would diminish our perception of God’s ability to work beyond the limitations that science has put in place. This is why I gave up on apologetics not very long ago because I came to this realization.

 

[Halbhh]

Brother if I have offended you or anyone else in this discussion I sincerely apologize, it was not my intention. I usually try to include words indicating brotherly love in my posts but sometimes when I’m at work and trying to make a quick reply forget to do it and I understand that in text a person’s manner can often seem rude and discourteous. So please accept my sincere apology brother I only wanted to discuss why I believe it is important to believe in the literal interpretation of the creation account because in my experience on this subject the scriptures often take a back seat to science and I feel it is important for everyone to understand that the Bible is a spiritual supernatural book that is completely full of miracles that are not supposed to be explainable by science. So when we get hung up on apologetics trying to match the Bible with science it just doesn’t work because while we might be able to come up with theories that may appear to explain one or two miracles there will always be miracles in the Bible that just can’t be explained because they weren’t supposed to be. The whole point of God performing miracles was to show His power and glory to man by performing impossible feats in order to bring people to repentance and to strengthen our trust in Him. I think a lot of people get hung up on trying to defend the attacks on God’s miracles when unbelievers use science to disprove the validity of the scriptures and to me the best defense is to point out the fact that miracles are not supposed to be supported by science. If they were then they would cease to be miracles and it would diminish our perception of God’s ability to work beyond the limitations that science has put in place. This is why I gave up on apologetics not very long ago because I came to this realization.

I didn't get any sense of being attacked or unloved, but was worried about how sometimes these discussions can go that direction, and want to avoid it ahead of time.

Regarding science and faith, I'd agree that few or none should think to try to match Genesis 1 to mainstream science. (Why? --because they don't know enough, really....) I didn't. Instead, a radically different thing happened.

I chanced on, without searching for it, and to my complete surprise, the unexpected discovery of hard evidence in 2017 that ancient Earth was a Water World. (this is now a widely reported for years mainstream science result:
Ancient Earth was a water world)

Of course, an unexpected discovery you were not looking to find isn't getting "hung up on apologetics trying to match the Bible with science".

Rather, it reminds of how the wonder of Nature can elicit faith: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

Amazingly, we now see in mainstream science direct evidence for the Water World described in Genesis chapter 1, which has probably been (or is for many still) perhaps the most odd seeming part of Genesis 1 to the untrained eye. If you find average people (who didn't major in the physical sciences in college) balking on Genesis chapter 1 vs science, it would pretty often be the Water World Genesis 1 describes.

But now we have evidence Earth was a Water World.

Evidence is not what I expect to find, or not much of it!

Why not?

--> Because God doesn't want from us a kind of "faith" where we tend to be skeptical and don't believe until after we see evidence, and then faced with evidence, we finally then concede that God exists and does miracles.

God wants from us the opposite on that: John 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

This is the kind of faith we are meant to have.

The kind that believes before seeing: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

So, we have this actual evidence, but not of everything, just 1 key thing....

It's enough to be interesting, and perhaps help a few that wonder, but also not too much evidence; it's not so much that it would obviate the chance to believe without seeing.

 

[Astrid]

I didn't get any sense of being attacked or unloved, but was worried about how sometimes these discussions can go that direction, and want to avoid it ahead of time.

Regarding science and faith, I'd agree that few or none should think to try to match Genesis 1 to mainstream science. (Why? --because they don't know enough, really....) I didn't. Instead, a radically different thing happened.

I chanced on, without searching for it, and to my complete surprise, the unexpected discovery of hard evidence in 2017 that ancient Earth was a Water World. (this is now a widely reported for years mainstream science result:
Ancient Earth was a water world)

Of course, an unexpected discovery you were not looking to find isn't getting "hung up on apologetics trying to match the Bible with science".

Rather, it reminds of how the wonder of Nature can elicit faith: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

Amazingly, we now see in mainstream science direct evidence for the Water World described in Genesis chapter 1, which has probably been (or is for many still) perhaps the most odd seeming part of Genesis 1 to the untrained eye. If you find average people (who didn't major in the physical sciences in college) balking on Genesis chapter 1 vs science, it would pretty often be the Water World Genesis 1 describes.

But now we have evidence Earth was a Water World.

Evidence is not what I expect to find, or not much of it!

Why not?

--> Because God doesn't want from us a kind of "faith" where we tend to be skeptical and don't believe until after we see evidence, and then faced with evidence, we finally then concede that God exists and does miracles.

God wants from us the opposite on that: John 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

This is the kind of faith we are meant to have.

The kind that believes before seeing: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

So, we have this actual evidence, but not of everything, just 1 key thing....

It's enough to be interesting, and perhaps help a few that wonder, but also not too much evidence; it's not so much that it would obviate the chance to believe without seeing.

Evidence that it MIGHT have been.

Be not in too big a hurry to adopt anything that
feeds confirmation bias.

And ignore things that falsify some cherished belief.

 

[Halbhh]

Evidence that it MIGHT have been.

Be not in too big a hurry to adopt anything that
feeds confirmation bias.

And ignore things that falsify some cherished belief.

Several independent science groups have separately found evidence that Earth was a water world.

So, once you become aware of the separate groups finding that, if one then continued to doubt it, they need to have a meaningful technical scientific reason by my standards, to dispute that increasing support of multiple findings. Otherwise one would reasonably accept it as 'growing evidence' that is 'accumulating'.