6,000 Years?

[tampasteve]

I read that AiG article and I'm curious what you like about it.

I agree with their stance on pointing out that many of the fossils that we find actually fall within the range of Homo Sapiens and could be attributed to them rather than another intermediate species such as Homo Erectus, or simply that a Homo Erectus was as "human" as we are if we cast aside the idea of evolution as typically taught. Also the point that many Homo Habilis fossils fall within the range for apes. The categories being created to fulfill the presumption of a clear evolutionary path from an ape like species to Homo Sapiens rather than simply apes or men.

 

[Frank Robert]

I haven't seen anything conclusively dated prior to Creation (approx 6000 years ago).

Perhaps you are wearing blinders; numerous artifacts have been discovered that date back significantly further than 6,000 years ago, including stone tools from sites like Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, cave paintings in the Sahara desert, and the monumental structures at Göbekli Tepev, which are estimated to be between 10,000 and 12,000 years old; all of these predate the time frame typically associated with the concept of "Creation" in religious narratives.

Now I know you will likely go off on a tangent of creationist misinformation so maybe I can anticipate some and address some of it save you time.

Here is an example of creationists misinformation

Creationists like to argue against carbon dating by claiming that the method is unreliable due to contamination, atmospheric carbon fluctuations, and the assumption of a constant decay rate, which they believe contradicts a young Earth timeline; however, scientists uses rigorous calibration process, to limit dating range of carbon dating.​

​

However, It is not difficult to find evidence supporting the consistency of radioactive decay rates across different samples is primarily.The consistency of radioactive decay rates across different samples is primarily supported by the fact that each radioactive isotope has a unique and constant half-life, which is solely determined by the nucleus and not affected by external conditions like temperature or pressure, thus allowing for consistent measurements across various samples of the same isotope; this consistency is further validated by extensive experimental observations and the reliability of radiometric dating methods that depend on predictable decay rates to determine the age of materials. Source...​

​

I will go into other aspects depending on how you respond. If do you choose to respond please include the sources for you claims.

 

[Job 33:6]

I watched Dr. John Walton, and it is very well done and interesting. The biggest problem I have is that he claims that Adam’s care of Eden is priesthood. That would mean that he was a priest to others in the garden. So, were more people than Adam and Eve sent out of the garden?

Another useful resource:

Not just the tabernacle and Solomons temple, but temples just more broadly, and across the region were paralleled with creation. It was common to decorate them in accordance with creation texts, as they served as sacred space.

Which helps frame Adam and Eves position as keepers of that initial sacred space, a position later held by regular people priests.

 

[River Jordan]

I agree with their stance on pointing out that many of the fossils that we find actually fall within the range of Homo Sapiens and could be attributed to them rather than another intermediate species such as Homo Erectus, or simply that a Homo Erectus was as "human" as we are if we cast aside the idea of evolution as typically taught.

I realize that's their conclusion, but my question was what you liked about how they reached that conclusion.

And casting aside the idea of evolution is ridiculous IMO, since it's a very real thing that we see occur.

Also the point that many Homo Habilis fossils fall within the range for apes.

Why though? Not having clear criteria for what is "human" and what is "ape" has been a long-running issue with creationists and primate fossils.

The categories being created to fulfill the presumption of a clear evolutionary path from an ape like species to Homo Sapiens rather than simply apes or men.

Do you believe scientists created those categories dishonestly?

 

[tampasteve]

I realize that's their conclusion, but my question was what you liked about how they reached that conclusion.

It's logical from a YEC perspective.

And casting aside the idea of evolution is ridiculous IMO, since it's a very real thing that we see occur.

Most YEC don't toss evolution as a whole, the entire idea of "kinds" of animals necessitates evolution to some degree, but not evolution to wholly new creatures (IE, from whales to land creatures or apes to man).

Why though? Not having clear criteria for what is "human" and what is "ape" has been a long-running issue with creationists and primate fossils.

Indeed that is a problem when interpreting fossils. It is how we can re-examine dinosaur fossils and come out with new animals, or determine that possibly we have far too many species as some may very well be juveniles of a singular species.

Do you believe scientists created those categories dishonestly?

Not dishonestly per-se, but starting from a different point, IOW, starting from a place not believing in a 6 day Creation, or some not believing in it at all. If you start from a point that an animal had to have evolved you will likely come to a different interpretation of the data than someone that interprets the data from a view that it has to be young.

 

[FaithT]

As with everything, one must be judicious and weight the evidence we are reading.

I wasn't talking about the age of the Earth, I was talking about evidence of alleged "archaic" Homo species being exaggerated.

And that's debatable from a Christian perspective.

How old do you think the earth is? Because AIG is a young earth site.

 

[tampasteve]

How old do you think the earth is? Because AIG is a young earth site.

I believe the Earth was created in 4004 BC.

 

[FaithT]

I believe the Earth was created in 4004 BC.

I disagree. Im an OEC.

 

[tampasteve]

I disagree. Im an OEC.

Fair enough, I don't consider it a salvific issue.

I was OEC until a few weeks ago myself.

 

[Job 33:6]

Whew. Glad that's all cleared up ^

I’m new to this thread and haven’t read everything. However, I have heard and read several times that בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית can be translated as “In a beginning.” Lately, I watch a presentation by Randall Carlson who claims that we might be the seventh “rebirth” of human civilization since the world began. The other six were destroyed by cataclysmic events. I have no doubt that the genealogies of the Bible are correct. Could previous biospheres with humans existed before Adam and Eve that have left little or no trace?

It's also important just to point out that, God throughout The Old Testament is depicted as an enthroned King.

And everybody knows this, but they don't really think too much about how that relates to what God creates. They don't really think about it in terms of historical context.

Consider the following:
1 King 22:19-23 NRSVUE
[19] Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing beside him to the right and to the left of him. [20] And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, so that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ Then one said one thing, and another said another, [21] until a certain spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ [22] ‘How?’ the Lord asked him. He replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then the Lord said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it.’ [23] So you see, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has decreed disaster for you.”

In the Old Testament, God is often depicted as Enthroned.

And that's where he rests. In Genesis on the 7th day, that's what he does, he rests, not on a couch but on his throne.

And he has a council with him that he consults with. It is known as his Divine assembly or Divine counsel depending on what translation you use.

Psalms 82:1 NRSVUE
[1] God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

And like all kings who have temples who rule from the throne, there are priests that take care of the place. Priests are there in the temple, keeping the temple. Mediating between God and the people.

When you read Genesis, you have to understand that there is a contextual background of this cosmic Temple, or a larger heavenly council. That is background in the Old Testament.

And in biblical times, serpents served as guardians, powerful Cherubim and seraphim. God's warriors.

Serpentine Divine beings.

So when you read about a snake in the garden, you have to enter the text. With that understanding, it's not about an animal that talks and had legs. You have to perceive the narrative in its historical context to understand who the serpent really was and why it was so significant that he rebelled. One of Gods members of the council.

And Adam and Eve fit into this narrative, God instructs them to work and keep the sanctuary, serving roles as priests would in a temple. Mediators between the heavens and the Earth.

 

[FaithT]

Fair enough, I don't consider it a salvific issue.

I was OEC until a few weeks ago myself.

What changed your mind?

 

[River Jordan]

It's logical from a YEC perspective.

Most YEC don't toss evolution as a whole, the entire idea of "kinds" of animals necessitates evolution to some degree, but not evolution to wholly new creatures (IE, from whales to land creatures or apes to man).

Indeed that is a problem when interpreting fossils. It is how we can re-examine dinosaur fossils and come out with new animals, or determine that possibly we have far too many species as some may very well be juveniles of a singular species.

Not dishonestly per-se, but starting from a different point, IOW, starting from a place not believing in a 6 day Creation, or some not believing in it at all. If you start from a point that an animal had to have evolved you will likely come to a different interpretation of the data than someone that interprets the data from a view that it has to be young.

I generally agree with what you're saying. To those who interpret scripture in a YEC way, the AiG article is logical and helpful.

 

[tampasteve]

What changed your mind?

I have always harbored a issue with the position that mainstream science claims such certainty in some matters, when the reality is that often things are just not that clear. As a minor example, look at the debate as to whether Red wolves are a species or just a hybrid of coyotes and grey wolves, or the debate if the dwarf manatee of the Amazon is really a dwarf or just a juvenile Amazonian manatee. The practice of declaring "new" species based on minimal fossils. The lack of juvenile dinosaurs, with some scientists admitting that probably some of our dinosaur species are really just juveniles of other species. The way scientists declare certain hominid fossils to be archaic based on traits that actually fit within the margin of modern homo sapiens.
Lastly, the argument that to throw out a literal view of creation and the six literal days seems to lead to a slippery slope of trying to decide what is literal and what can be tossed out as old-fashioned or un-necessary today. There's more, but it is probably out of the scope of this thread.

 

[FaithT]

I have always harbored a issue with the position that mainstream science claims such certainty in some matters, when the reality is that often things are just not that clear. As a minor example, look at the debate as to whether Red wolves are a species or just a hybrid of coyotes and grey wolves, or the debate if the dwarf manatee of the Amazon is really a dwarf or just a juvenile Amazonian manatee. The practice of declaring "new" species based on minimal fossils. The lack of juvenile dinosaurs, with some scientists admitting that probably some of our dinosaur species are really just juveniles of other species. The way scientists declare certain hominid fossils to be archaic based on traits that actually fit within the margin of modern homo sapiens.
Lastly, the argument that to throw out a literal view of creation and the six literal days seems to lead to a slippery slope of trying to decide what is literal and what can be tossed out as old-fashioned or un-necessary today. There's more, but it is probably out of the scope of this thread.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[River Jordan]

I have always harbored a issue with the position that mainstream science claims such certainty in some matters, when the reality is that often things are just not that clear. As a minor example, look at the debate as to whether Red wolves are a species or just a hybrid of coyotes and grey wolves, or the debate if the dwarf manatee of the Amazon is really a dwarf or just a juvenile Amazonian manatee. The practice of declaring "new" species based on minimal fossils. The lack of juvenile dinosaurs, with some scientists admitting that probably some of our dinosaur species are really just juveniles of other species. The way scientists declare certain hominid fossils to be archaic based on traits that actually fit within the margin of modern homo sapiens.

Now this is what interests me.

I guess I don't understand how someone can go from "scientists haven't figured out the taxonomic status of red wolves" to "the earth is 6,000 years old", especially after you said earlier that evolution within "kinds" is required in YEC. Wouldn't a red wolf still be in the dog kind, whether it's a hybrid or new species?

Lastly, the argument that to throw out a literal view of creation and the six literal days seems to lead to a slippery slope of trying to decide what is literal and what can be tossed out as old-fashioned or un-necessary today. There's more, but it is probably out of the scope of this thread.

That I can understand. I just have a difficult time understanding how anyone can justify YEC by citing science.

 

[setst777]

The Holy Eucharist is not some symbol:
1 Cor 11:28-30 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[a] RSVCE

Why do you bring up this quote? All this Passage is saying is that we are to remember the reason/judge/discern why we are taking the Lord's Supper, which is not just to fill our bellies and drink wine; rather, the purpose is to drink and eat in remembrance of Lord Jesus when he offered his body and blood for our sins on the cross.

Truly, they were eating food and drinking wine.

1 Corinthians 11:21-22 (WEB) 21 For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in?

So, Paul is telling them to keep in mind, to judge their own hearts, whether they are partaking of the Lord's Supper with a pure heart.

As to John 6, Jesus tells us "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you."

When Jesus is questioned, the Greek word to eat is switched to "trogian," which means to chew, to gnaw, to masticate. That is, to physically eat. "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I'll raise him up at the last day." This Koine Greek form is continued to be used.

Yes, we know what the words mean, just as we know what "door" that we must enter through (John 10:7-10), or "vine" (John 15:1-9) that the branches must remain in. Notice, Lord Jesus did not say he represents the door or vine, but that he literally is the "door" and the "vine."

Unless you read the context, which I have repeatedly shown you in John 6, you will never understand.

Things of the flesh do profit nothing. We are to follow Jesus and do as He commands. That includes "Do this,." meaning the blessing and breaking of bread, His words of consecration, and consuming his true Body and Blood.

Lord Jesus plainly stated that what they were drinking (which represented the blood of the New Covenant) was actually the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

Why is it you refuse to accept what Lord Jesus stated in context?
Didn't Lord Jesus plainly state that what he gave them to drink was literally the fruit of the vine?
Why take Lord Jesus' teaching out of context to support the teachings of men?

What Lord Jesus gave them to eat was bread, just as he gave them wine to drink, but represented his body broke for them.

Luke 22:19-20 (WEB) 19 He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.” 20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Jesus speaks plainly and emphatically. "Truly, truly" he tells us. Since eternal life is mentioned elsewhere that in no way negates what Jesus tells us in John 6 nor what is told us by other of the human writers of the New Testament. It is indeed a "hard saying" and was challenged early in the Church. St. Ignatius spoke out:

This was a "hard saying," difficult to understand, because they refused the teaching of Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus plainly stated his meaning previously, as follows.

John 6:35 (WEB) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will not be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

The Gospel of Salvation is about coming to (eating) Lord Jesus and believing (drinking) in Him to be saved, and NOT by eating his literal flesh and drinking his blood. The Jews hardened their hearts; and so, they were unable and unwilling to accept Lord Jesus own meaning.

St. Ignatiues of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 7, 110 A.D.
"I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterward of he seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."

Many early Christians had divergent views about many doctrines. Even today we see this happening.

 

[Job 33:6]

Lastly, the argument that to throw out a literal view of creation and the six literal days seems to lead to a slippery slope of trying to decide what is literal and what can be tossed out as old-fashioned or un-necessary today. There's more, but it is probably out of the scope of this thread.

Was there something in particular that concerned you about OEC? Aside from just broad concerns about a slippery slope?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Was there something in particular that concerned you about OEC? Aside from just broad concerns about a slippery slope?

Oh, the memes we live by. Goodness gracious.

 

[Job 33:6]

To be fair, anyone can take two seconds and can read indefinite translations of Genesis 1:1 and see that the Bible doesn't inherently say anything about the age of the earth:

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

If we are all being honest about the topic, it is what it is. The Bible is ambiguous on the matter.

When George began to walk to the store...the store was closed.

Nobody would ever look at a statement like this and would try to conclude that it says anything about how long the store has existed.

But in our western culture, we've become embattled over Christian identity and concerns over liberal agendas and things of this nature. As though lgbtq or women pastors have become a more important topic than what the Bible plainly says.

When George began to create a work of art, now the art was formless and messy.

When George began to create a recipe for dinner.

When George began to create a website.

When George began to create an internet meme.

When George began to create a piece of furniture. Or a sculpture. Or a building.

When George began to create a business or a football team etc.

We could think of countless things that can be created. And we could think of a million comparisons to Genesis 1:1.

But what do any of the above have to do with ex nihilo creation?

Absolutely nothing. The most basic detail that young earth creationists lean on, is just a house of cards. Because the text doesn't say how long the furniture was formless and in pieces, before George began to create the furniture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fair enough, I don't consider it a salvific issue.

I was OEC until a few weeks ago myself.

That's amazing to hear, TS, and in my saying this, I'm being neither critical nor approving. I'm just surprised. I don't know many people who have moved in that direction of interpretation.

However, even so, I'm sure you have had some useful and thoughtful reasons that nudged you into that direction.

Peace.