How old is the Earth?

sorry, I double posted

''adamah'' is the spelling.
NOW I got results.

The Dake is an KJV bible with Dakes commentary in the sidebars.
many KJV only groups use it.
Dake had quite a reputation with the younger ladies as well as buying into evolution theory himself.
His commentaries in his book has references to a pre-adamite race.

I use the KJV and the Bibles put out by Sovereign Grace Publishers that are also based on the same Greek and Hebrew Texts as the KJV.
I do believe that when in doubt, stick with the KJV.
I do not buy into inspired translation. Thats where the KJV only folks lose me.
It has stood the test of 400 years and much persecution though.

I am not sure how this word is necessarily confining the flood to any particular region. Its meaning it quite evident.

Yesterday at 02:38 PM Taffsadar said this in Post #32


So the Chinese got there before Adam and Eve... I guess that mean that they were created along with the animals.

Click to expand...

I tend to believe that there were humans before Adam and Eve. The difference was the breath of life or the "Nashamah". This was the divine inspiration and the intellect of Adam.

I believe the male and the female created on day 6 was very much like the Adam and Eve created on the 8 th day. But they did not have the same breath of life that Adam and Eve had.

It would be a little bit difficult to disregard prehistoric history.

Check out www.answersingenesis.org

You need to be more specific than that. Can you give us an article in AIG we should read?

Seek and you shall find.

Today at 12:33 AM Alessandro said this in Post #44

Check out www.answersingenesis.org

Click to expand...

Been there, done that, not impressed.

Well, while we are throwing out whole web addresses, I would suggest you take a look at:

www.talkorigins.org

Today at 09:48 PM Alessandro said this in Post #46

Seek and you shall find.

Click to expand...

Yesterday at 07:38 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #40

One example: In the KJV a word often ends with "eth". This means to continue in something. If you remove the "eth" from the word, then people start to think it is a one time event, rather than something you need to be steadfast and consistent in.

Click to expand...

Sorry to go off topic, but I have to clarify something. To my knowledge, the inflectional suffix "-eth" or "-th" has nothing to do with "continuing in something." In the English of King James, verbs conjugated in the third person singular present tense tend to carry with them this ending, which is now archaic. Over a few hundred years, the suffix has become the "-s" ending we modern English speakers are all familiar with today (in phrases such as "he eats" or "she talks").

Any verb in the present tense carries with it the implication that the action the verb describes is still taking place. At the very least, that doesn't leave me thinking that that action need be a one-time event.

Hehe, no matter... whatever floats your boat, I guess. Reading practically any version of the Bible can't be all that bad...

EDIT: always editing my wording...

Today at 02:47 AM L'Anatra said this in Post #49


Sorry to go off topic, but I have to clarify something. To my knowledge, the inflectional suffix "-eth" or "-th" has nothing to do with "continuing in something." [/i][/size]

Click to expand...

Will, now you have some new knowledge. Is't that nice that you came here and learned something

Today at 06:03 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #50
Will, now you have some new knowledge. Is't that nice that you came here and learned something

Click to expand...

Hehe, well thanks for trying to teach me something! I learn something new here every day.

But, the "-eth" suffix truely does not carry with it a meaning of "continuation of some action" any moreso than the modern "-s" suffix does. The modern suffix is the same as that used in the Northumbrian dialect of Old English spoken several hundred years ago. Why "-eth" has been lost is anyone's guess.

In any case, they are one and the same. My point is, "-eth" is just an archaic form that carries no additional meaning. It's kind of like "thou" means nothing more to us than "you" does.

Nevertheless, there is a suffix that does carry with it the concept of a continuing action. That suffix is "-ing", which forms the present participle of a verb, as in "he is typing."

EDIT: wording, as usual

The Earth is 23, soon 24 years old. That's how long I've been alive. How do I know if it has existed longer ? All this nonsense, I don't believe it before I see it.

Today at 06:46 AM pace said this in Post #52
The Earth is 23, soon 24 years old. That's how long I've been alive. How do I know if it has existed longer ? All this nonsense, I don't believe it before I see it.

Click to expand...

Hehe

Today at 06:25 AM L'Anatra said this in Post #51 

  My point is, "-eth" is just an archaic form that carries no additional meaning.

Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you like. But at the Bible collage I attend, they teach us that the eth or any extention like that means to continue in something. So, that is what we believe.

Rev. 2:26
    And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

You can overcome and keep the word of God. But you have to keep right on overcoming and keep right on keeping the word of God to the end, and then you are saved.

Luke 9:62
    But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."


 





 

Today at 08:15 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #54
You can believe whatever you like. But at the Bible collage I attend, they teach us that the eth or any extention like that means to continue in something. So, that is what we believe.

Rev. 2:26
    And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

You can overcome and keep the word of God. But you have to keep right on overcoming and keep right on keeping the word of God to the end, and then you are saved.

Click to expand...

That's cool. I wouldn't exactly call my statement a belief, though. I'm no expert, but I do know a bit about the history of the English language.

Since "-eth" is an inflectional ending indicating a verb in the present tense, I can understand where your Bible college (and others) would get the idea that it indicates a "continuation" of some event or action. A verb in the present tense describes an action that is happening now. As I said, "-s" carries the same meaning. That's why we no longer use "-eth" in everyday speech. Does that make sense?

It may help if you studied a language that uses inflectional endings, such as Spanish, Italian, or, in particular, Latin. English has lost practically all verb inflection.

In any case, Revelations 2:26 could be written this way and carry the exact same meaning. Honest. That's what the "unto the end" adverbial is for; one must always overcome and always keep His works.
And he that overcomes, and keeps my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations.

But who am I to question your Bible college? That's your job...

Yesterday at 12:44 AM Servant77 said this in Post #8

6000 years? never heard of that theory... then again, I haven't really studied it, either...

Click to expand...

The 6,000 years is what Bishop Ussher calculated going thru the generations.  He came out with the specific day in 4004 BC when the earth was supposed to have been created. If I remember correctly, it was October 12.  But I may be wrong on that detail.

at 10:55 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #22


That is incorrect. We actually reject very little.

LOL!! Your rejection of "little" is interesting.  You reject all of biology, all of geology, a lot of physics, most of astronomy, etc.  What is left?

We do not accept fallible dating method. We do not accept evolution.

Have you told us yet how the methods are "fallible"? You do realize, don't you, that an old earth was accepted by 1800, long before radiometric methods?  And accepted by Christians, including Christian ministers.
 
I accept probably 95% of all scientific evidence. I jsut accept the fact that it fits very neatly into a young earth created in 6 days.

In that case you 1) don't only about 1% of scientific evidence and 2) are deceiving yourself about that evidence.

As for theory that doesnt fit, it gets the round file (its unproven conjecture anyway).

Which is exactly what creationism got -- the round file -- in the early 19th century. The theory didn't fit the data.

Today at 09:47 PM lucaspa said this in Post #56



The 6,000 years is what Bishop Ussher calculated going thru the generations.  He came out with the specific day in 4004 BC when the earth was supposed to have been created. If I remember correctly, it was October 12.  But I may be wrong on that detail.

Click to expand...

The 4004 BC was when Adam and then later on Eve was created.

Adam was the first civilized man. The earth could have been around for whatever length of time you want. But civilization and Adam and Eve have only been around for about 6000 years.

If you want to do a study on it, you can use the search words: "The furtile cresent" and "the craddle of civilization"

Yesterday at 03:20 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #36



We are a KJV only church, so we do not support new age translations.  

Click to expand...

What church is that, John? At one time you claimed to be Methodist, but I know that Methodists now use the NIV.

Today at 10:08 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #58



The 4004 BC was when Adam and then later on Eve was created.

Adam was the first civilized man. The earth could have been around for whatever length of time you want. But civilization and Adam and Eve have only been around for about 6000 years.

If you want to do a study on it, you can use the search words: "The furtile cresent" and "the craddle of civilization"

Click to expand...

For Bishop Ussher, as well as all other conservative Christians, Adam and Eve and the rest of humanity came at the same time.  YOU are the only one that has ever advocated this gap between creation of humans and creation of Adam and Eve, as far as I can tell.  I once asked you if any of the faculty at your Biblical "collage" (and why you keep using that word instead of college is perplexing) supported it. Or if you could find any Biblical scholar who supports it.

I'm still waiting for an answer.

If I use the search words "the furtile cresent" and "the craddle of civilization" I won't get any results.  Or was that your intention with the mispellings?

Of course, your whole post maybe is a "furtile cresent" of misinformation?