6,000 Years?

[Jipsah]

Ignoring all scriptural statements which most obviously do support a young earth, which have been provided for you many times over by myself personally over the years, does not make them just magically disappear.

Scripture may suggest that the universe was created around the first of last year, but observation shows otherwise. The difference between a solar day and what God reckons as a day is dealt with quite succinctly in 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4. I find '1000 years is as a watch in the night' particularly evocative if only for its simple clarity. And the best response the advocates of a six solar day creation is that Scripture "doesn't really mean" what it so elegantly says.

I don't even have any opportunity to ignore any scripture you would or could provide suggesting your own deep time views, as you have not and cannot ever supply such scriptures.

Except that I just gave you two that explicitly say that God isn't bound by time as we are, and that what are to us iimmensly long periods of time are of little significance to God. How strange that you've never read them! But stranger still is the refusal to read, or to acknowledge the existence of, Scriptures that show that God is eternal, and in fact created time itself. The six "days" of Creation were a means of conveying some level of understanding among the primitives to whom it was given that God had Created everything over a period of time.

 

[Platte]

"Facts" being what you decide they are based on your a priopri beliefs, isn't that right?

Facts are those things that are proven true...such as the Earth revolves around the sun...

Then I take it you should embrace Flat Earth, since Flerfies declare that The Bible Says The Earth is Flat, and that all emoirical evidence to the contrary is a studied deceit propagated by somebody or other for apparently inexplicable "reasons". Sounds a lot like the "young earth" position, doesn't it?

No because I believe that Science has proven as a fact that the Earth is round and not flat. The Bible does not say the earth is flat anywhere...now if someone were to translate or understand it that way - they would be foolish since the facts tell us otherwise. So fix your translation or understanding of what the Bible says.

Those before Jesus put their trust in Moses....The word of Moses was meant to be believed (they were directly from God)...Moses gave them a direct literal history for them. Your comments border on blasphemy - good luck.

 

[Jipsah]

Oh spare me. Your comments border on blasphemy - good luck.

Oh spare me that kind of rubbish. Believing that the doctrine you embrace is parently untrue on a number of levels is hardly blasphemy unless you happen to be God, which you ain't. Pious posturing doesn't nothing to address the illogic of your position, but I reckon you have to run with what you've got.

 

[Platte]

Oh spare me that kind of rubbish. Believing that the doctrine you embrace is parently untrue on a number of levels is hardly blasphemy unless you happen to be God, which you ain't. Pious posturing doesn't nothing to address the illogic of your position, but I reckon you have to run with what you've got.

I don't have a doctrine to embrace....I simply believe what Moses told us...you don't. I suppose next you'll tell me that eternal life with Jesus is just a metaphor.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll repeat again.

The Historical account of Moses should be taken literally. That includes Creation, Cain and Abel, the Flood, The Tower of Babel, the History of Abraham,Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the 400 years of slavery, the life of Moses, and of course the Exodus, and subsequent years in the Wilderness.

That covers anything you asked previously...are asking now...and are going to ask in the future.

The Historical account of Moses should be taken literally. That includes Creation, Cain and Abel, the Flood, The Tower of Babel, the History of Abraham,Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the 400 years of slavery, the life of Moses, and of course the Exodus, and subsequent years in the Wilderness.

I take the Bible literally:

 

[Jipsah]

I don't have a doctrine to embrace.

Of course not! I mean, who does?

...I simply believe what Moses told us..

And believe it to be literally, technically, true. Which it is not. It was meant to convey the understanding that God createds the universe and everything in it, to primitive people who had no basis at all for understanding it, or using it, for any technical purpose whatsoever.. It's a page and a half of "here's how God created everything", and It served its intended purpose admirably. But we're not, comparatively, speaking, little children. There's no need to act as though we were, or to pretend that the book intended for comparative children ought to be accepted an authoritative account of how God brought the universe to be.

.you don't.

Obviously not. I know more at a glance about how God designed this universe to work than those folks thousands of years ago could possibly have imagined. Like any good teacher, God met His students where they were, so He didn't tell them about astronomy, or electronics, or semiconductor processors, of anything else that would have been gibberish to them. He told them as much ad they could grasp, and left the more advanced lessons for those who came later. Some of whom, sadly, would reject it, preferring to cling to a child's brief glimpse of the unimaginable magnitude of what God has made.

I suppose next you'll tell me that eternal life with Jesus is just a metaphor.

Let's not be idiotic, shall we? If that sort of rubbish is the best you have to offer, then maybe a primeval shepherd's understanding of God's Creation is the best you can bring to bear, and thus we have little or no basis for communication at all. In which case good day to you.

 

[Platte]

Of course not! I mean, who does?

And believe it to be literally, technically, true. Which it is not. It was meant to convey the understanding that God createds the universe and everything in it, to primitive people who had no basis at all for understanding it, or using it, for any technical purpose whatsoever.. It's a page and a half of "here's how God created everything", and It served its intended purpose admirably. But we're not, comparatively, speaking, little children. There's no need to act as though we were, or to pretend that the book intended for comparative children ought to be accepted an authoritative account of how God brought the universe to be.

Obviously not. I know more at a glance about how God designed this universe to work than those folks thousands of years ago could possibly have imagined. Like any good teacher, God met His students where they were, so He didn't tell them about astronomy, or electronics, or semiconductor processors, of anything else that would have been gibberish to them. He told them as much ad they could grasp, and left the more advanced lessons for those who came later. Some of whom, sadly, would reject it, preferring to cling to a child's brief glimpse of the unimaginable magnitude of what God has made.

Let's not be idiotic, shall we? If that sort of rubbish is the best you have to offer, then maybe a primeval shepherd's understanding of God's Creation is the best you can bring to bear, and thus we have little or no basis for communication at all. In which case good day to you.

Well if you have any facts that’s dispute Moses’ account of creation this forum is your place.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well if you have any facts that’s dispute Moses’ account of creation this forum is your place.

What science has found is not in any way in opposition to God's word in Genesis.

 

[Platte]

Well if you have any facts that’s dispute Moses’ account of creation this forum is your place.

@The Barbarian @Job 33:6 @Jipsah

Well I will say this - you guys must have some big kahunas...to make such drastic changes to the literal writing that Moses gave us (Given to him directly from God) of the Creation account. Based on little to no facts (sorry Theories are not facts)...and based upon an extremely limited data set.

-AI-
It is fair to say that we probably know less than 1% of the scientific knowledge that can be attained about Earth, especially when considering the immense mysteries that remain. This viewpoint is well-supported by significant, unresolved questions across various fields of Earth science.

I'm sure we know less that .000001% of scientific space knowledge.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well I will say this - you guys must have some big kahunas...to make such drastic changes to the literal writing that Moses gave us (Given to him directly from God) of the Creation account. Based on little to no facts (sorry Theories are not facts)...and based upon an extremely limited data set.

You've merely rewritten the story as a literal history. Which is why your revision has you trapped into declaring that the sky is a solid dome with windows in it for rain to fall through.

It is fair to say that we probably know less than 1% of the scientific knowledge that can be attained about Earth

Nevertheless, I can assure you that the sky is not a dome with windows in it.

 

[Platte]

You've merely rewritten the story as a literal history. Which is why your revision has you trapped into declaring that the sky is a solid dome with windows in it for rain to fall through.


Nevertheless, I can assure you that the sky is not a dome with windows in it.

I have no idea what a solid dome is? I've never read that in the Bible.

Here are 2 things that you do NOT know.

1. Did people live to be 1000 years old before the Flood?
2. There was no rain before the flood?

If either (or both) of these are true...then you really have no idea about possible differences about the atmosphere before the flood

 

[The Barbarian]

I have no idea what a solid dome is? I've never read that in the Bible.

The Hebrews thought the sky was a dome with windows in it. The word for sky was something like "hammered out metal" used to describe metal bowls.

Here are 2 things that you do NOT know.

1. Did people live to be 1000 years old before the Flood?

The Bible says three score and 10. Seventy years. If God did miraculously prolong the lives of some people, that doesn't negate what the Bible says about man's lifespan. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the lifespan of men was 1000 years.

2. There was no rain before the flood?

Even many YECs admit that there was rain before the flood:

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood. Many of them make this statement quite dogmatically as if it were obvious from a reading of the biblical text. However, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

Was There No Rain Before the Flood?

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood; however, as Dr. Tommy Mitchell shows us, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

answersingenesis.org

If either (or both) of these are true...

Neither are true, of course. See above.

then you really have no idea about possible differences about the atmosphere before the flood

Do you now see how careless interpretation of scripture leads people astray? Incidentally, there never could have been a solid dome over the Earth, because the Earth is a sphere. Here is the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe:

God wasn't trying to correct Hebrew ideas of the Earth; He was telling us about man's wickedness and His justice and mercy.

 

[Platte]

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood. Many of them make this statement quite dogmatically as if it were obvious from a reading of the biblical text. However, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

Was There No Rain Before the Flood?

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood; however, as Dr. Tommy Mitchell shows us, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

answersingenesis.org

They don't claim that is rained before the flood

and btw - 1/3 of the sky is solid today

Why are you posting someone else' OPINION? If they want to share their opinion they can post themself.

Give me your opinion and then present facts that back it up....you've presented no facts.

 

[The Barbarian]

They don't claim that is rained before the flood

Another often-overlooked aspect of this argument is that rain is an integral component of the water cycle. The term water cycle refers to the physical processes of water evaporation, cloud formation, and precipitation (rain, snow, etc.) that continually recycle the world’s water supply.

The water cycle, being powered as it is by the sun’s energy, is intimately tied to many other aspects of the earth’s climate. While we cannot be dogmatic about the details of the pre-Flood environment, we can be certain that the sun and seas were present (Genesis 1:10, 15). Therefore, there is no reason to insist that this normal environmental process was not in operation before the Flood.

Was There No Rain Before the Flood?

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood; however, as Dr. Tommy Mitchell shows us, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

answersingenesis.org

As even many YECs point out, there is no scriptural support for the idea that there was no rain before the flood.

and btw - 1/3 of the sky is solid today

Nope. Just checked. Some of it had liquid water floating in it. (clouds). But no solid dome.

Why are you posting someone else' OPINION?

Pointing out that even other YECs don't agree with you.

Give me your opinion and then present facts that back it up....you've presented no facts.

Raindrops prior to humans:

Raindrop impressions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We send spacecraft to the moon and beyond. They don't crash through a solid sky. C'mon.

Do you now see how your insistence that Genesis must be entirely literal has led you into a completely absurd position?

 

[Jipsah]

@The Barbarian @Job 33:6 @Jipsah

Well I will say this - you guys must have some big kahunas.

I think a Kahuna was/is a Hawaiian shamam of some sort.

..to make such drastic changes to the literal writing that Moses gave us (Given to him directly from God) of the Creation account.

I didn't change thing, I just said that it wasn't literally true, which, apart from "God created the heavens and the earth", it plainly isn't.

We plainly differ as to what should be taken literally and what should not. For instance, you obviously believe that believing that God created the universe in six solar days, while I find little or no Biblical warrant for believing at all. But I'm willing to wager that you absolutely reject that these words of God Himself should be taken literally:

"Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
and
"This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/1CO.11.23-30
I could be wrong, of course; I'd like nothing better. But I expect your response to be "Oh, but He can't have meant that literally", and your opinion supported by a the usually list of sophistries. For my part, I take it literally. Maybe it's just a matter of which you think is more important.

Based on little to no facts

Except, of course, that studies of God's actual creation reveal ito have taken many millions of years longer than that. A long time for us, a short putt for God. After all, Scripture tells us that 1000 years is like a watch in the night for God, but you don't need that for your doctrine, do you? I mean, you can't be expected to take all of Scripture literally, now can you?

(sorry Theories are not facts).

I guess "gravity" being only a theory allows you to flap your arms and buzz around street lights, yes?

..and based upon an extremely limited data set.

Yeah, the "light" source (that didn't make it into Scripture) that pre-existed the actual sun your lot have to invent make your "evenings and mornings" work isn't part any data set at all, is it? BTW, at what point does the necessity of having to add stuff to the Creation narrative to make it suit your doctrine differ from simply lying?

I'm sure we know less that .000001% of scientific space knowledge.

That's OK, y'all can just make up stuff as your doctrine requires.

 

[Platte]

As even many YECs point out, there is no scriptural support for the idea that there was no rain before the flood.

Nope. Just checked. Some of it had liquid water floating in it. (clouds). But no solid dome.


Pointing out that even other YECs don't agree with you.

Raindrops prior to humans:

Raindrop impressions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We send spacecraft to the moon and beyond. They don't crash through a solid sky. C'mon.

Do you now see how your insistence that Genesis must be entirely literal has led you into a completely absurd position?

Another often-overlooked aspect of this argument is that rain is an integral component of the water cycle. The term water cycle refers to the physical processes of water evaporation, cloud formation, and precipitation (rain, snow, etc.) that continually recycle the world’s water supply.

The water cycle, being powered as it is by the sun’s energy, is intimately tied to many other aspects of the earth’s climate. While we cannot be dogmatic about the details of the pre-Flood environment, we can be certain that the sun and seas were present (Genesis 1:10, 15). Therefore, there is no reason to insist that this normal environmental process was not in operation before the Flood.

Was There No Rain Before the Flood?

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood; however, as Dr. Tommy Mitchell shows us, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

answersingenesis.org

As even many YECs point out, there is no scriptural support for the idea that there was no rain before the flood.


Nope. Just checked. Some of it had liquid water floating in it. (clouds). But no solid dome.


Pointing out that even other YECs don't agree with you.

Raindrops prior to humans:

Raindrop impressions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We send spacecraft to the moon and beyond. They don't crash through a solid sky. C'mon.

Do you now see how your insistence that Genesis must be entirely literal has led you into a completely absurd position?

Great opinion piece...doesnt mean your opinion is correct. Your first assumption is that everything is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

 

[Platte]

Another often-overlooked aspect of this argument is that rain is an integral component of the water cycle. The term water cycle refers to the physical processes of water evaporation, cloud formation, and precipitation (rain, snow, etc.) that continually recycle the world’s water supply.

The water cycle, being powered as it is by the sun’s energy, is intimately tied to many other aspects of the earth’s climate. While we cannot be dogmatic about the details of the pre-Flood environment, we can be certain that the sun and seas were present (Genesis 1:10, 15). Therefore, there is no reason to insist that this normal environmental process was not in operation before the Flood.

Was There No Rain Before the Flood?

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood; however, as Dr. Tommy Mitchell shows us, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

answersingenesis.org

As even many YECs point out, there is no scriptural support for the idea that there was no rain before the flood.

There's no scriptural support....yet where do you think the whole idea of it never raining before the flood came from.

Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet (ie. RAIN), moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Arguments that it never rained before the Biblical Flood primarily stem from interpretations of Genesis 2:5-6, which describes a world watered by a mist from the earth instead of rain before people were created, and the idea of a pre-Flood water vapor canopy that would have created a warm, uniform climate, eliminating the need for rain. Supporters of this view also point to the rainbow as a post-Flood covenant symbol, suggesting it signified the first experience of rain and God's promise not to flood again.

Biblical Interpretation

• Genesis 2:5-6:
  This passage is central to the "no rain" argument, stating, "The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground". Some interpret this as a literal description of the pre-human world's watering system, with a mist hydrating the land.
  
  
• Genesis 7:
  The description of the Flood in Genesis 7, where the "floodgates of the heavens" open and rain falls for forty days and nights, is sometimes seen as the first time rain occurred on Earth, marking a significant, unprecedented change.
  
  
• Rainbow Covenant:
  Arguments suggest the rainbow's introduction in Genesis 9:11-17 as a symbol of God's promise to never flood the Earth again implies that rain was a novel phenomenon that had not been experienced before the Flood.
  

The Vapor Canopy Model

• Greenhouse Effect:
  Proponents of the vapor canopy model propose that a dense layer of water vapor existed high in the atmosphere before the Flood. This canopy would have created a global greenhouse effect, leading to a warm, humid, and uniformly tropical climate.
• 
  
  This canopy could have been solid as water would freeze...hMMM a solid dome around the earth
• Eliminating Weather:
  The absence of significant temperature differences across the globe would have prevented strong winds and storms, thus eliminating the need for rain, which forms from atmospheric condensation.
  
  
• Watering the Earth:
  The mist mentioned in Genesis 2 is explained as part of this process, providing water for the land. The Flood's catastrophic opening of the "waters above the firmament" is then seen as the collapse of this canopy.

 

[Platte]

I think a Kahuna was/is a Hawaiian shamam of some sort.

It was - but we American's hijack words

 

[Platte]

"Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
and
"This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1 Corinthians 11:23-30 Let me go over with you again exactly what goes on in the Lord’s Supper and why it is so centrally important. I received my instructions from the Master himself and passed them on to you. The Master, For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My b The teaching I gave you is the same teaching I received from the Lord: On the night when the Lord Jesus was handed over to be killed, he took bread and gave thanks for it. Then he broke the bread and For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my b For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, e For I received from the Lord Himself that [instruction] which I passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and sa For I pass on to you what I received from the Lord himself. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and said, “This I have handed down to you what came to me by direct revelation from the Lord himself. The same night in which he was handed over, he took bread and gave thanks. Then he distributed it to the disciples For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, whic
I could be wrong, of course; I'd like nothing better. But I expect your response to be "Oh, but He can't have meant that literally", and your opinion supported by a the usually list of sophistries. For my part, I take it literally. Maybe it's just a matter of which you think is more important.

thats your argument for not taking the 6 days of Creation literally?

Except, of course, that studies of God's actual creation reveal ito have taken many millions of years longer than that. A long time for us, a short putt for God. After all, Scripture tells us that 1000 years is like a watch in the night for God, but you don't need that for your doctrine, do you? I mean, you can't be expected to take all of Scripture literally, now can you?

Yes and Adam would have taken longer than a day to be a fully grown adult.

I guess "gravity" being only a theory allows you to flap your arms and buzz around street lights, yes?

I'm sorry - and how does "gravity" affect Scripture.

When let go of an object in my hand - it will drop....that is a fact. The theory is we don't know for a fact why that happens.

Yeah, the "light" source (that didn't make it into Scripture) that pre-existed the actual sun your lot have to invent make your "evenings and mornings" work isn't part any data set at all, is it? BTW, at what point does the necessity of having to add stuff to the Creation narrative to make it suit your doctrine differ from simply lying?

Are you referring to the "light" that I made up that God saw in Genesis 1:4?
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

That's OK, y'all can just make up stuff as your doctrine requires.

 

[The Barbarian]

There's no scriptural support....yet where do you think the whole idea of it never raining before the flood came from.

YEC, trying to extend the Garden conditions to the post-fall world generally.

Arguments suggest the rainbow's introduction in Genesis 9:11-17 as a symbol of God's promise to never flood the Earth again

Rain is not flooding. And of course, floods had always happened, and continue to happen.

Proponents of the vapor canopy model propose that a dense layer of water vapor existed high in the atmosphere before the Flood. This canopy would have created a global greenhouse effect, leading to a warm, humid, and uniformly tropical climate.

More than that. Even if the laws of physics would let that happen, the release of heat would cook every living thing.
Advocates of the canopy theory once speculated that the collapse of such a vapor canopy might have provided the water for the heavy rains which inundated the earth during Noah’s flood. One problem with the canopy theory, however, is, the latent heat of water and the sheer quantities of water involved. If such a vapor canopy were to collapse into rain, it would literally cook the entire planet. This is because when water converts from vapor to liquid, energy or latent heat is released in the process, causing the surrounding area to heat up; this is known as an exothermic result. Conversely, when water converts from solid form—ice—to liquid or from liquid to vapor, energy is absorbed and the surrounding area is cooled—an endothermic result.

The Genesis account calls for five-and-a-half weeks of constant rain. If a canopy consisting of enough water vapor to provide that amount of rain were to collapse, it would cook the entire planet. This is not to say that there was no vapor canopy or that it did not collapse, only that, if it did, it could not have provided the amount of rain in question (the less water, the less heat).

What is the canopy theory? | GotQuestions.org

What is the canopy theory? Was there a canopy of water that surrounded the earth before the Flood?

www.gotquestions.org