Bible dateing methods

[excalibercamelot]

ok folkies lets discuss dateing shall we? according to the bible the earth was flooded about 5k years ago, noah died 25 years defore abraham was born,

scentist say the earth was flooded many millions of years ago,

in visiting caves there are flow stones and stags/tights that take many years to form more than 10,000 years for a simple drip to form a 10 foot stalagtite

so lets debate the flood sceince vs the bible dateing paradox.

 

[artybloke]

scentist say the earth was flooded many millions of years ago,

No they don't. They say that, while there is evidence all round the globe of some pretty big local floods, there is no evidence anywhere of a worldwide flood. Sadly for the literalists among us, they have all the physical evidence on their side.

 

[Bloomin' Pyro]

ok folkies lets discuss dateing shall we? according to the bible the earth was flooded about 5k years ago, noah died 25 years defore abraham was born,

scentist say the earth was flooded many millions of years ago,

in visiting caves there are flow stones and stags/tights that take many years to form more than 10,000 years for a simple drip to form a 10 foot stalagtite

so lets debate the flood sceince vs the bible dateing paradox.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that according to Christian Scientists, the earth was Flooded (in reference to "Noah's Flood") 5,000 years ago (c. 3000 BC). According to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, that would be the case.

Here's an article on evolutionary timetables:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

 

[memoryroad]

There is no evidence of world-wide flood as far as i know.

 

[Dave Taylor]

according to the bible the earth was flooded about 5k years ago

The bible doesn't say this.

The date of the flood is not given in the Bible; nor is the age of the earth given.

There are popular extra-biblical speculations, estimates, and guesses that abound...some of which have been accepted by many within Christianity as if they were in the Bible; but the Bible itself doesn't provide this information.

It does provide alot of geneologies; but from the internal evidences of the geneologies; we know that they are not recorded in detail; one generation after the other; so as to form a perfectly accountable estimate; nor are all of the geneologies given supplied with birth and death dates....so again, your comment above is completely extra-biblical speculation.

The Bible does teach that the earth was destroyed by a world-wide flood; sometime in the ancient past; and that only 8 human beings (Noah's family); and 2s or 7s of each kind (species) of animal were preserved through it; and subsequently repopulated the earth.

 

[artybloke]

The Bible no more teaches a worldwide flood than it teaches the existence of a real Good Samaritan. The importance of the flood story is not in whether there really was a worldwide flood (even considering that for the ancient world the whole world consisted of up to the horizon and a few miles beyond.) The importance of the flood story is in what it teaches us about God and about our need for God. The Bible's not a book of science, it's a book of spiritual truth.

 

[visionary]

The Bible no more teaches a worldwide flood than it teaches the existence of a real Good Samaritan. The importance of the flood story is not in whether there really was a worldwide flood (even considering that for the ancient world the whole world consisted of up to the horizon and a few miles beyond.) The importance of the flood story is in what it teaches us about God and about our need for God. The Bible's not a book of science, it's a book of spiritual truth.

A good book of spiritual truth has a solid foundation on facts of science. We do not think with our finite minds that we know science like the inifinite mind does, do we?

 

[jbarcher]

... just to add on to what arty said,

Trying to analyze ancient, ancient texts with our modern scientific categories is anachronistic through and through.

 

[KristianJ]

Note: This thread was moved here from Christian Apologetics

 

[artybloke]

A good book of spiritual truth has a solid foundation on facts of science.

You mean like the "solid facts of science" in De Imitatio Christi, or The Practice of the Presence of God, or George Fox's Journal, etc etc? They are all good solid spiritual guides (I'd recommend the second, for instance.) But not a thing about science in them.

This is a 19th Century post-Enlightenment materialistic philosophy disguised as religion. It's trying to impose a Postivisist view of truth ("Truth=Fact") on a text that was written in a pre-Enlightenment world, where people simply did not think in terms of scientific concepts that are resolutely modernist.

God himself cannot be "proved" using scientific method. He can only be "proved" by faith.

 

[Crusadar]

excalibercamelot said: in visiting caves there are flow stones and stags/tights that take many years to form more than 10,000 years for a simple drip to form a 10 foot stalagtite

Why don't you ask the tour guides how long it took for stalagtite to form on this pipe found in the Rolphton Hydro Electric dam built in the 1950's?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

excalibercamelot said: in visiting caves there are flow stones and stags/tights that take many years to form more than 10,000 years for a simple drip to form a 10 foot stalagtite

Why don't you ask the tour guides how long it took for stalagtite to form on this pipe found in the Rolphton Hydro Electric dam built in the 1950's?

Why don't you ask them what it is made of, I bet it is not made of the same thing in the same density that cave stalactites are.



Show me a solid calcium carbonate stalactite that formed in fifty years and we might be able to talk, Not these salt/gypsum fluffy and soft ones.



The person who showed this to you did not check what his picture was really or do any research. This is found time and time again in creationist arguments and points… When are you people going to quit trusting people that seem to have nothing better to do than to lie to you?

 

[gluadys]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that according to Christian Scientists, the earth was Flooded (in reference to "Noah's Flood") 5,000 years ago (c. 3000 BC). According to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, that would be the case.

Here's an article on evolutionary timetables:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

An article filled with a lot of PRATTs*

Most of them are covered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

And here is an article that deals point by point with Humphrey's bogus claims.
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/Hump.html


*Points Refuted A Thousand Times

 

[CentreOfMyLife]

Hi Dave Taylor,

The date of the flood is not given in the Bible; nor is the age of the earth given.
It does provide alot of geneologies; but from the internal evidences of the geneologies; we know that they are not recorded in detail; one generation after the other; so as to form a perfectly accountable estimate; nor are all of the geneologies given supplied with birth and death dates....so again, your comment above is completely extra-biblical speculation.

We can work out the approximate age of the Earth and the Flood using these
genealogies. The genealogies are there primarily to show Jesus' history, which goes right back to Adam in the Garden of Eden. Adam, was the first Adam, while Jesus is the last Adam. Through the first Adam all will die, but through the last Adam, all are made alive.

The Bible tells us the age of the father when the male descendant was born. This is all what we really need to know. We don't need father son, son, son, son, etc, to use the genealogies. All what you need to know is how old the older male was when his descendant was born and then how old that descendant was when his descendant was born and so on down to Jesus Christ. So, all we have to do is just add up the numbers.

For example, say that my grand father was born during the creation week. He would have been 61 years old when I was born. Then say that I'm 25 when my first child is born.

Now, from the start of creation, it is 61 years until I am born, then an additional 25 years until my first child is born. So far the total is 86 years from creation until my child is born. Then say that my first child is 67 when he has a grand child. So we add 67 more years on to that, and we get 153 years from creation until my great gand child is born. My mother may have been 22 years old when I am born, but who cares? If my mother was mentioned, then my grand father's age when she was born would have been noted. We don't need that information about my mother or father in our calculations because we know how old my grand father was when I was born and we know that he was created during the creation week. And so it goes on. Whether Enoch was Methuselah's father or grand father is irrelevent because we know the age of his Enoch when Methuselah was born, and we also know the age of Jared when Enoch was born and so on all the way up to Seth and finally Adam.

Sometimes, the word father means not only natural father in the sense that we mean, but it can mean grand father or any other ancestor. But as shown, it makes no difference on the accuracy of the genealogies.

As you can see, such arguments about inaccurate dates being received from the genealogies are quite false. Therefore, arguments about the age of the Earth using the Bible's genealogies as evidence are quite true and accurate.

Yours in Christ,
COML.

Also, the death ages of the ancestors are not needed in the calculations of genealogies and the age of the Earth.

 

[Floodnut]

There is no evidence of world-wide flood as far as i know.

God says there was a worldwide Flood.

 

[Floodnut]

An article filled with a lot of PRATTs*

Most of them are covered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

And here is an article that deals point by point with Humphrey's bogus claims.
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/Hump.html


*Points Refuted A Thousand Times

They are actually PDATTS, denied, not refuted.

 

[gluadys]

They are actually PDATTS, denied, not refuted.

Show me one that is not refuted.

 

[billwald]

"A good book of spiritual truth has a solid foundation on facts of science."

Non sequitur. A book of spiritual truth need not reference any "scientific" fact.

(hint: how do scientific facts differ from other sorts of facts: what is a "fact?")

 

[Smidlee]

They are actually PDATTS, denied, not refuted.

Don't let evolutionist's PRATT brother you. It a catchly phrase which they love to use to try to make their claims sounded more true. There a lot of assumptions and questionable facts on the hard-core evolution site "Talkorigins". They will grab at many straws just to debate away anything ID or creationist use to make a point yet don't mind claiming assumptions as fact to make theirs. I'm so gald for YEC for continuing to question the evolution dogma which probably help to eventually lead to ID.
P.S. If you want to see what a hare-core evolutionist believes then there is no better website than "Talkorigins".

 

[gluadys]

Don't let evolutionist's PRATT brother you. It a catchly phrase which they love to use to try to make their claims sounded more true. There a lot of assumptions and questionable facts on the hard-core evolution site "Talkorigins". They will grab at many straws just to debate away anything ID or creationist use to make a point yet don't mind claiming assumptions as fact to make theirs. I'm so gald for YEC for continuing to question the evolution dogma which probably help to eventually lead to ID.
P.S. If you want to see what a hare-core evolutionist believes then there is no better website than "Talkorigins".

Show me an example that fits this description.