But, they shouldn't have been. They were mistaken. Why would you think otherwise? I'm not just making this up. Paul said it was foolish to still try to follow the old covenant law.
Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you:
Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again
I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
The old covenant was no longer in effect after Christ's death regardless of whether people were still trying to follow it after that or not. That is the point. His death put a complete end to the old covenant and established the new covenant. That's what being made obsolete means. People trying to still live under the old covenant when they should have been starting to live under the new covenant was meaningless.
So what? That doesn't change the fact that the old covenant was made completely obsolete and no longer in effect by Christ's death. The Jews weren't the ones to determine when it was no longer in effect, Jesus was.
Already agreed the old covenant was made obsolete at the cross.
Again, my point was that the “traces” were actually much bigger , as thousands of Christian Jews, including the apostles James, were zealous for the law even decades after the cross. Whether they were right or wrong, is besides the point.
As to Galatians - that passage is about the Galatians attempting to rely on the Law for righteousness, which is only applicable IF the thousands of Christian Jews, who were zealous for the law, were still practicing in order to obtain righteousness.
That is false. It's sad that you accept what secular sources who have an agenda tell you instead of accepting what the Word of God itself indicates.
Genesis 6:6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So
the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.
Did the Lord regret that He had made human beings only in a specific region of the earth? Of course not. That's ridiculous. He was clearly speaking of human beings in general. And it says He would wipe them from the face of the earth. Not from just a certain place on the earth, but from the entire earth. Why do you not accept what scripture teaches over what anti-Christian sources say?
What is your basis for saying this? Are you a scientist? Have you done the research on this yourself? There are scientists who make that claim and other scientists who say otherwise. How do you decide which geologists and scientists you believe?
Why do you act as if all archaeologists agree on these things? What is your source for this?
Not false, as there is no serious evidence that there was ever a global flood - that it is solely the fundamentalist interpretation of an ANE text that held to a completely different cosmological understanding of the world. Do you believe the world looks the same as ANE cosmology?
My sources are Christian geologists:
“Christians in the natural sciences, particularly Christian professional geologists, are overwhelmingly in agreement that the Earth is extremely old, and they accept the current determination of approximately 4.55 billion years as the most reliable value for the age of Earth
”
Five scientific evidences that show the impossibility of a single flood carving the Grand Canyon.
biologos.org
Stephen Moshier and Gregory Bennett argue that uniformitarianism is consistent with Scripture, suggesting that it reflects God's unchanging nature and providence.
biologos.org
The Affiliation of Christian Geologists is committed to the historic Christian faith and to its meaningful integration with the best available science. This effort reflects our desire to serve God with all our minds.
ncse.ngo
Of course most Greek words have multiple definitions. But, explain to me exactly how "a philsophy, structure, etc." can melt with fervent heat even in a figurative sense.
the temple was literally burned with fire.
And who told you this? It says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That's the literal heavens and literal entire earth. Trying to say otherwise is just a case of trying to change the Word of God to say what you want it to say.
The Gospel Coalition spells it out nicely:
Scientific objections aside, the more I study Genesis 1 and 2, the more I think it is unlikely that the "days" are referring to strict 24-hour periods. Here's why.
www.thegospelcoalition.org
“So when God refers to “days,” does he want us to mentally substitute the word “eons” or “ages”? No.
Does he want us to think of precise units of time, marked by 24 exact hours as the earth makes a rotation on its axis? No.
Does he want us to think of the Hebrew workday? Yes, in an analogical and anthropomorphic sense. Just as the “seventh day” makes us think of an ordinary calendar day (even though it isn’t technically a 24-hour period), so the other “six days” are meant to be read in the same way.
This is what the great Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) believed: “The creation days are the workdays of God. By a labor, resumed and renewed six times, he prepared the whole earth.”
This is also what the Presbyterian theologian W.G.T. Shedd (1820-1894) advocated:
The seven days of the human week are copies of the seven days of the divine week. The “sun-divided days” are images of the “God-divided days.”
This agrees with the biblical representation generally. The human is the copy of the divine, not the divine of the human. Human fatherhood and sonship are finite copies of the Trinitarian fatherhood and sonship. Human justice, benevolence, holiness, mercy, etc., are imitations of corresponding divine qualities.
The reason given for man’s rest upon the seventh solar day is that God rested upon the seventh creative day (
Ex. 20:11). But this does not prove that the divine rest was only twenty-four hours in duration any more than the fact that human sonship is a copy of the divine proves that the latter is sexual.
Augustine (the most influential theologian in the Western Church) believed something similar, as did Franz Delitzsch (perhaps the great Christian Hebraist).
It was the most common view among the late 19th century and early 20th century CONSERVATIVE Dutch theologians.
God is portrayed as a workman going through his workweek, working during the day and resting for the night. Then on his Sabbath, he enjoys a full and refreshing rest. Our days are
likeGod’s workdays, but not identical to them.
How long were God’s workdays? The Bible doesn’t say. But I see no reason to insist that they were only 24 hours long.”
Are you being purposely dishonest here? You're talking about the geometric center of the universe, right? That is not what they mean when they say that. Why wouldn't you have mentioned what they meant by that?
This is what they say about that: "The earth occupies the central position in the entire universe because of its God-given role, even though it may not be in the geometrical center.". How convenient for you to not mention this.
I thought the article didn’t really make sense - evolutionists say earth is not the geometric center of the universe. Answers in genesis responds by saying - earth is the center but “may” not be the geometric center - I just thought it was bizarre article. If answers in genesis doesn’t believe earth is the geometric center, it didn’t really warrant a response to “evolutionists”.
Those dating methods have been proven to be faulty. Why do you put so much blind trust in such things? I'm in agreement with Answers in Genesis on this when they say:
"Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant. By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.".
Here's more info about radiometric dating:
Radiometric Dating
Answers in genesis claim of dating rocks of known ages is based on an extremely poor study of an eruption on mount saint helens - see link where a Christian geologists explains the hack science of young earth creationists.
A rebuttal to the claims made by young earth creationists. Young Earth Creationist Dating of a Mt Saint Helens Dacite
www.oldearth.org
Additionally, Answers in Genesis’ claim of the decay rate constant being unprovable assumption is absolutely incorrect.
“When reference books list values for the half-life of various materials, they are really listing the half-life for the material when its atoms are at rest, in the ground state, and in a particular chemical bonding configuration. Note that most changes to the half-life of radioactive materials are very small. Furthermore, large changes to a half-life require elaborate, expensive, high-energy equipment (e.g. particle accelerators, nuclear reactors, ion traps).
Therefore, outside of specialized labs, we can say that as a good approximation radioactive decay half-lives don't change. For instance, carbon dating and geological radiometric dating are so accurate because decay half-lives in nature are so close to constant.”
Yes, the decay half-life of a radioactive material can be changed. Radioactive decay happens when an unstable atomic nucleus spontaneously changes ...
www.wtamu.edu
While I’m not a geologist, I do have a doctorate in pharmaceutical sciences with training in nuclear medicine. decay rate constants are required for calculations in making sure the right doses are provided for procedures.
So unless a lab is doing something to the decay rate constant, radiometric dating is pretty accurate - and the earth is older than 10,000 years old. 
