6,000 Years?

[River Jordan]

You would have to have a verifiable age of a stone tool or other artifact in order to use them to date something else

Which they do.

You mean to tell me you've never even heard of C-14 calibration? If that's so, how can you think yourself not only an expert in it but so much of an expert that everyone should believe your claims over the work of actual professionals?

Isn't that a bit prideful?

 

[Valletta]

True, Lord Jesus offered his body and blood for purchase redemption for our sins, but the Scriptures never state that bread and wine transforms into the body and blood of Lord Jesus. However, if you want to believe that, go ahead and do so.

What was in the cup was "the fruit of the vine" just as Lord Jesus stated, but represented the New Covenant in His blood.

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.”

What Lord Jesus gave them to eat was bread, 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.



They were taking literally what Lord Jesus was meaning figuratively.

John 6:35 (WEB) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me [eating] will not be hungry, and whoever believes in me [drinking] 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.

John 6:63 (WEB) It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.

According to the Gospel we don't possess eternal life by literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but be truly believing in him - the New Covenant is about the Spirit, not the flesh.

John 7:37-39 (WEB) 37 Now on the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink! 38 He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But he said this about the Spirit, which those believing in him were to receive.



Lord Jesus plainly stated that what they were drinking was the fruit of the vine, which represents the New Covenant in His Blood to all who believe in him. That is the Gospel.

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.”

Lord Jesus said that what they were drinking was "fruit of the vine."

If you want to rebel against Lord Jesus, and continue believing that you have to literally eat Christ's body and drink his blood to be saved, you are free to do so; however, that is not the context. The context is always about coming to Lord Jesus and believing in Him as our Savior and Lord. That is the Gospel all through the New Testament.

Indeed, it was a "hard saying" that His disciples were to eat His Body and drink His Blood. Many walked away. Jesus did not trick his disciples into believing He was speaking about his true flesh and blood when He was not nor would He. Jesus would not let them walk away by fooling them. Understand there is no guile in Jesus. He did indicate that they were to have faith in these words, that things of the flesh were of no avail and they had to believe, spiritually believe, contrary to what their senses might appear to indicate.

Incorrect, Jesus DID NOT say they were drinking the fruit of the vine, Jesus said "this is my blood." You are adding that. Jesus refers to blood as blood and wine as wine. Realize the fourth cup of the Passover had not yet been drunk. What began at the Last Supper, the first mass, was not concluded until Jesus was on the cross, when Jesus drank wine, just before Jesus said "It is finished." It was offered to Jesus on a hyssop branch, just as the blood of the lamb was sprinkled by hyssop at Passover.

In John 6 over and over Jesus makes it clear we are to EAT his flesh, actually switching to the Greek word which means gnaw or chew and using it multiple times so there is no mistake. The blood of Jesus, Jesus Himself, is our "New Covenant" or "New Testament," Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Thus when the Catholic Church was choosing new books for the Bible Catholics began to refer to those books being chosen for the mass liturgy as "books of the New Testament."

 

[Platte]

Unless you happen to be a professional who works with carbon dating techniques, I see no reason to blindly accept your claims that go against every professional in the field.

Do you really think you know their work better than they do?

What I'm saying is what a professional would tell you:

Carbon dating
Carbon dating is working under several unverifiable assumptions....you have to know the original amount of C14 in a subject before your can calculate a carbon date....you also have to know the ratio of C14/C12....We make assumptions for both of these.

<copy from Google AI>

Google Search

The primary assumptions made in carbon dating are: that the concentration of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has remained relatively constant throughout time, that once an organism dies, it stops absorbing new carbon, and that the decay rate of Carbon-14 is known and consistent, allowing for accurate age calculations based on the remaining amount of Carbon-14 in a sample.

Key assumptions of carbon dating:

• Constant atmospheric Carbon-14 levels:
  This is the most critical assumption, meaning the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere has been stable over time.
  
  
• No contamination:
  The sample being analyzed has not been contaminated with carbon from other sources, either older or younger.
  
  
• Closed system:
  Once an organism dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the environment, meaning no new Carbon-14 is added after death.
  
  
• Known decay rate:
  The rate at which Carbon-14 decays is well-established and constant.

Important points to consider:

• Calibration:
  Although the constant atmospheric Carbon-14 assumption is not entirely accurate, scientists can calibrate carbon dates by using tree rings and other data to account for fluctuations in atmospheric Carbon-14 levels over time.
  
  
• Reservoir effects:
  Different carbon reservoirs, like the ocean, can have different Carbon-14 concentrations, which can require adjustments when dating marine organisms.

---

Radiocarbon Dating - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

https://benpiper.com/2011/07/the-truth-about-carbon-dating/ The site above explains that Carbon-14 dating is based on a few assumptions, like to deduce the age of an organism by looking at the amo...

earthscience.stackexchange.com

CARD

www.canadianarchaeology.ca

 

[Platte]

Which they do.

You mean to tell me you've never even heard of C-14 calibration? If that's so, how can you think yourself not only an expert in it but so much of an expert that everyone should believe your claims over the work of actual professionals?

Isn't that a bit prideful?

C14 Calibration is an ongoing excercise of carbon dating - what is the verifiable aged stone tool that they used to calibrate?

 

[setst777]

Indeed, it was a "hard saying" that His disciples were to eat His Body and drink His Blood. Many walked away. Jesus did not trick his disciples into believing He was speaking about his true flesh and blood when He was not nor would He. Jesus would not let them walk away by fooling them. Understand there is no guile in Jesus. He did indicate that they were to have faith in these words, that things of the flesh were of no avail and they had to believe, spiritually believe, contrary to what their senses might appear to indicate.

Just because it was a "hard saying" does not mean it is a literal saying. The Jews were not meant to understand it at that time, because the Gospel was being hid from them because of the hardness of their hearts.

Matthew 13:10-13 (WEB) 10 The disciples came, and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered them, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is not given to them. 12 For whoever has, to him will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever doesn’t have, from him will be taken away even that which he has. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they don’t see, and hearing, they don’t hear, neither do they understand.

Luke 19:42 (WEB) If you, even you, had known today the things which belong to your peace! But now, they are hidden from your eyes.

After Lord Jesus was risen and glorified, the Spirit was given to His disciples so they would understand all these things.

John 14:26 (WEB) But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.

Incorrect, Jesus DID NOT say they were drinking the fruit of the vine, Jesus said "this is my blood." You are adding that. Jesus refers to blood as blood and wine as wine. Realize the fourth cup of the Passover had not yet been drunk. What began at the Last Supper, the first mass, was not concluded until Jesus was on the cross, when Jesus drank wine, just before Jesus said "It is finished." It was offered to Jesus on a hyssop branch, just as the blood of the lamb was sprinkled by hyssop at Passover.

There is no such thing as a "fourth cup." That is man-made teaching.

Lord Jesus plainly stated that what he gave them to drink was indeed 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.”

Lord Jesus said that he just got done giving them to drink was "fruit of the vine." You can deny it all you want, but there it is, that anyone can see. But you cannot see what is plainly stated. Why is that do you think?

In John 6 over and over Jesus makes it clear we are to EAT his flesh, actually switching to the Greek word which means gnaw or chew and using it multiple times so there is no mistake. The blood of Jesus, Jesus Himself, is our "New Covenant" or "New Testament," Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Thus when the Catholic Church was choosing new books for the Bible Catholics began to refer to those books being chosen for the mass liturgy as "books of the New Testament."

Here is how Lord Jesus explained what he meant in "John 6" for those who had ears to hear:

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

You canot benefit spiritually by eating flesh and drinking blood; rather, salvation is by coming to Lord Jesus and believing in him. This is Spiritual.

John 6:63 (WEB) It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.

Notice that my reply to you is right from "John 6," the very chapter you are appealing to. There is nothing in the New Testament about the wine and bread transforming into the blood and body of Lord Jesus. That is all man-made doctrine.

Lord Jesus is the Living Bread that came down from heaven. 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.

 

[Job 33:6]

Key assumptions of carbon dating:

• Constant atmospheric Carbon-14 levels:
  This is the most critical assumption, meaning the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere has been stable over time.

Important points to consider:

• Calibration:
  Although the constant atmospheric Carbon-14 assumption is not entirely accurate, scientists can calibrate carbon dates by using tree rings and other data to account for fluctuations in atmospheric Carbon-14 levels over time.

It looks like you've resolved your own concern here by pointing out the use of alternative methods, such as tree ring measurements, for calibration of C14 measurements.

Or do you believe that dendrochronology is also some kind of false field of study?

 

[setst777]

1 Corinthians 11:23-26​

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper​

23 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, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[a] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. RSVCE

"Verse 26" is the explanation, which has nothing to do with drinking his blood or eating his flesh.

What they were eating and drinking was bread and 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?

 

[Valletta]

"Verse 26" is the explanation, which has nothing to do with drinking his blood or eating his flesh.

What they were eating and drinking was bread and 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?

John 6: 53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

When doubted, the change of the Greek word in John 6 to a form of eat which means to gnaw or chew was as emphatic as Jesus could get. Jesus speaks plainly and truly, no trickery involved. His flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. A High Priest forever, of the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek was king of Salem (later called Jerusalem). Melchizedek offered mere bread and wine. Jesus, the Lamb of God, fulfilled what had come before and was both High Priest and sacrifice. Jesus gives us His Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. I know the three leaders of the reformation all had there own ideas of the Holy Eucharist, but look how far away so many have come as time has passed.

 

[Platte]

It looks like you've resolved your own concern here by pointing out the use of alternative methods, such as tree ring measurements, for calibration of C14 measurements.

Or do you believe that dendrochronology is also some kind of false field of study?

There are issues with tree rings.

1. We know that 1 ring grows approximately every year - but we also have to make the assumptions that its always been that way. The environment preFlood was significantely different then the environment today...people lived to be 1000 years old. Did tree rings still only grow 1 per year? We can assume it did - but we just don't know.
2. When God created trees - if a tree was created as a 500 year old tree - it would have been created with 500 rings. That could cause some issues with tree dating..
3. The oldest known tree is estimated at 4800 years old....we don't have 10,000 or 20,000 year old trees.

Of someone grew a tree 10,000 years ago and documented that tree - and it was still here - that would be pretty good evidence....but we don't have that.

LON-CAPA Gymnosperm Database: information on tree age determination

Description of how tree ages are determined.

s2.lite.msu.edu

 

[Frank Robert]

You would have to have a verifiable age of a stone tool or other artifact in order to use them to date something else

Artifacts used to date sites like Göbekli Tepe include chipped stone tools, grinding stones, and animal bones. This can be done using radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating, tephrochronology, or magnetostratigraphy.

You have not identified a source for your claim "the dating of Göbekli Tepe was ridiculed and dismissed" Perhaps you do not have a source?

 

[River Jordan]

What I'm saying is what a professional would tell you:

Carbon dating
Carbon dating is working under several unverifiable assumptions....you have to know the original amount of C14 in a subject before your can calculate a carbon date....you also have to know the ratio of C14/C12....We make assumptions for both of these.

<copy from Google AI>

Google Search

The primary assumptions made in carbon dating are: that the concentration of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has remained relatively constant throughout time, that once an organism dies, it stops absorbing new carbon, and that the decay rate of Carbon-14 is known and consistent, allowing for accurate age calculations based on the remaining amount of Carbon-14 in a sample.

Key assumptions of carbon dating:

• Constant atmospheric Carbon-14 levels:
  This is the most critical assumption, meaning the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere has been stable over time.
  
  
• No contamination:
  The sample being analyzed has not been contaminated with carbon from other sources, either older or younger.
  
  
• Closed system:
  Once an organism dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the environment, meaning no new Carbon-14 is added after death.
  
  
• Known decay rate:
  The rate at which Carbon-14 decays is well-established and constant.

Important points to consider:

• Calibration:
  Although the constant atmospheric Carbon-14 assumption is not entirely accurate, scientists can calibrate carbon dates by using tree rings and other data to account for fluctuations in atmospheric Carbon-14 levels over time.
  
  
• Reservoir effects:
  Different carbon reservoirs, like the ocean, can have different Carbon-14 concentrations, which can require adjustments when dating marine organisms.

---

Radiocarbon Dating - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

https://benpiper.com/2011/07/the-truth-about-carbon-dating/ The site above explains that Carbon-14 dating is based on a few assumptions, like to deduce the age of an organism by looking at the amo...

earthscience.stackexchange.com

CARD

www.canadianarchaeology.ca

C14 Calibration is an ongoing excercise of carbon dating - what is the verifiable aged stone tool that they used to calibrate?

I think you may have missed my point. You seem to be trying to make the argument that C-14 dating is unreliable and faulty. My point to you is, why should anyone go with your opinions on it over the views of the professionals who actually do it? Do you think you know more about the method than those professionals?

 

[Job 33:6]

There are issues with tree rings.

1. We know that 1 ring grows approximately every year - but we also have to make the assumptions that its always been that way. The environment preFlood was significantely different then the environment today...people lived to be 1000 years old. Did tree rings still only grow 1 per year? We can assume it did - but we just don't know.

Well of course nobody is going to take this seriously because most Bible scholars do not treat the Bible as a science textbook. Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science.

2. When God created trees - if a tree was created as a 500 year old tree - it would have been created with 500 rings. That could cause some issues with tree dating..

Well, thankfully trees aren't instantaneously created with 500 rings as if God were trying to fool us.

3. The oldest known tree is estimated at 4800 years old....we don't have 10,000 or 20,000 year old trees.

It seems like you have not actually studied dendrochronological records. They extent back over 11,000 years given that more than one tree is used to construct the record. If you have say, three trees with 3 unique records:

ABCDEFGHI
And----EFGHIJKLMN
And--------------JKLMNOPQRS

Then collectively you can have a tree ring record of ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS , even if a single individual tree only lives a short segment of the total record. You simply combine the records of multiple trees.

Once again, I am disappointed by YEC apologetics.

 

[River Jordan]

There are issues with tree rings.

1. We know that 1 ring grows approximately every year - but we also have to make the assumptions that its always been that way. The environment preFlood was significantely different then the environment today...people lived to be 1000 years old. Did tree rings still only grow 1 per year? We can assume it did - but we just don't know.
2. When God created trees - if a tree was created as a 500 year old tree - it would have been created with 500 rings. That could cause some issues with tree dating..
3. The oldest known tree is estimated at 4800 years old....we don't have 10,000 or 20,000 year old trees.

Of someone grew a tree 10,000 years ago and documented that tree - and it was still here - that would be pretty good evidence....but we don't have that.

LON-CAPA Gymnosperm Database: information on tree age determination

Description of how tree ages are determined.

s2.lite.msu.edu

Same issue. I actually work with dendrochronologists, and yes we do have trees and rings that are 10's of thousands of years old. They find them embedded in glaciers for example.

And if you're going to argue that maybe God just deceptively made things look old when they really aren't, we'll just have to agree that we have very different views on that. I see no reason at all for God to do such a thing.

 

[setst777]

John 6: 53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

When doubted, the change of the Greek word in John 6 to a form of eat which means to gnaw or chew was as emphatic as Jesus could get. Jesus speaks plainly and truly, no trickery involved. His flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. A High Priest forever, of the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek was king of Salem (later called Jerusalem). Melchizedek offered mere bread and wine. Jesus, the Lamb of God, fulfilled what had come before and was both High Priest and sacrifice. Jesus gives us His Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. I know the three leaders of the reformation all had there own ideas of the Holy Eucharist, but look how far away so many have come as time has passed.

Lord Jesus spoke that "hard saying" because they first hardened their hearts toward him. However, before he said "John 6:53-58," Lord Jesus previously plainly revealed to them how they may have eternal life - which they would not accept - as follows:

John 6:32-47 (WEB)
32 Jesus therefore said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, it wasn’t Moses who gave you the bread out of heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread out of heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”
34 They said therefore to him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
35 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. 36

But I told you that you have seen me, and yet you don’t believe.
37 All those whom the Father gives me will come to me. He who comes to me I will in no way throw out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.
39 This is the will of my Father who sent me, that of all he has given to me I should lose nothing, but should raise him up at the last day. 40 For this is the will of the one who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

41 The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down out of heaven.” 42 They said, “Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then does he say, ‘I have come down out of heaven?’”

43 Therefore Jesus answered them, “Don’t murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ [Isaiah 54:13] Therefore everyone who hears from the Father and has learned, comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except he who is from God. He has seen the Father. 47 Most certainly, I tell you, he who believes in me has eternal life.

Notice that, to these hard-hearted Jews who refused to believe what he stated, he made this hard saying to condemn them in "John 6:53-58."

If Lord Jesus had truly meant that we have to drink his blood and eat his flesh to have eternal life, then such would be taught all through the New Testament. But that is not what is taught. Rather, the Gospel is all about coming to Lord Jesus and believing in Him as Lord and Savior to be possess eternal life just as Lord Jesus plainly taught in "John 6:32-47."

John 6:35 (WEB)
35 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.

John 5:24 (WEB) 24 “Most certainly I tell you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and doesn’t come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

How do we possess Eternal Life, according to the Gospel?

John 3:16 (WEB) 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but may have eternal life.

John 3:36 (WEB) 36 One who believes in the Son has eternal life, but one who disobeys the Son won’t see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Either eternal life is by eating drinking his blood and eating his flesh to have eternal life

OR

Eternal life is by hearing the Gospel and believing in Lord Jesus.

The New Testament bears testimony throughout that it is by hearing the Gospel and believing in Lord Jesus that we possess Eternal Life.

Acts 20:20-21 … 20 I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus.

You canot benefit spiritually by eating flesh and drinking blood; rather, salvation is by coming to Lord Jesus and believing in him. This is Spiritual.

John 6:63 (WEB) It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.

 

[Platte]

Artifacts used to date sites like Göbekli Tepe include chipped stone tools, grinding stones, and animal bones. This can be done using radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating, tephrochronology, or magnetostratigraphy.

You have not identified a source for your claim "the dating of Göbekli Tepe was ridiculed and dismissed" Perhaps you do not have a source?

What artifacts? We need to critically examine them.

 

[Platte]

Same issue. I actually work with dendrochronologists, and yes we do have trees and rings that are 10's of thousands of years old. They find them embedded in glaciers for example.

And if you're going to argue that maybe God just deceptively made things look old when they really aren't, we'll just have to agree that we have very different views on that. I see no reason at all for God to do such a thing.

I’m pretty sure Adam looked like a man when God created him. That’s not deception that’s call being functional.
The exercise here is not to dispute the Bible but rather to understand it.

 

[Platte]

Well of course nobody is going to take this seriously because most Bible scholars do not treat the Bible as a science textbook. Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science.

Well, thankfully trees aren't instantaneously created with 500 rings as if God were trying to fool us.




It seems like you have not actually studied dendrochronological records. They extent back over 11,000 years given that more than one tree is used to construct the record. If you have say, three trees with 3 unique records:

ABCDEFGHI
And----EFGHIJKLMN
And--------------JKLMNOPQRS

Then collectively you can have a tree ring record of ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS , even if a single individual tree only lives a short segment of the total record. You simply combine the records of multiple trees.

Once again, I am disappointed by YEC apologetics.

The Bible is not scientific but rather perspective. Just like we are when we discuss a sunrise or high tide (neither are scientific). Im not sure what YEC is, all I can do is tell you what the Bible says.
You are trying to argue against the Bible instead of trying to understand it. Good Luck

 

[Job 33:6]

The Bible is not scientific but rather perspective. Just like we are when we discuss a sunrise or high tide (neither are scientific). Im not sure what YEC is, all I can do is tell you what the Bible says.
You are trying to argue against the Bible instead of trying to understand it. Good Luck

A shallow response, as expected.

 

[River Jordan]

I’m pretty sure Adam looked like a man when God created him. That’s not deception that’s call being functional.
The exercise here is not to dispute the Bible but rather to understand it.

Even if God made Adam as a fully grown man as you believe, that doesn't mean therefore God made trees with annual rings already in them, plus all the other manipulations that would have to occur.

And it's not scriptural.

 

[Apple Sky]

Even if God made Adam as a fully grown man as you believe, that doesn't mean therefore God made trees with annual rings already in them,

I reckon that most of the trees were cut down before the deluge & have since become petrified.

petrified trees - Google Search