How old is the Earth?

hiscosmicgoldfish · Feb 20, 2013

can i butt in here...

aman didn't say that hugh wasn't a true christian, but that he is not a true bible believer, which is true, the same as i don't believe much of the OT, and revelation in the NT. we are 'bible unbelieving christians'.
and i attend a good bible unbelieving church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ

verysincere · Feb 20, 2013

hiscosmicgoldfish said:
can i butt in here...

4) To say that Dr. Ross (with whom I often disagree) is not a "true Christian" just because he doesn't agree with a particular treatment of the grammar of the highest mountain text in Genesis IS CONTRARY TO THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS. (You really need to review the meaning of the Gospel as defined by Jesus.)

aman didn't say that hugh wasn't a true christian, but that he is not a true bible believer, which is true, the same as i don't believe much of the OT, and revelation in the NT. we are 'bible unbelieving christians'.
and i attend a bible unbelieving church.

The two terms are OFTEN treated as synonymous in that camp---because to not "believe the Bible" is to "not believe God."

That said, to say he is "not a Bible believe" simply because he sides with the Hebrew scholars who think that the proper translation states that the total height of the flood was 23 feet is idiotic. Just because honest translators reach two different conclusions does NOT mean the one group is refusing to believe the Bible. Absurd.

verysincere · Feb 20, 2013

hiscosmicgoldfish said:
can i butt in here...

4) To say that Dr. Ross (with whom I often disagree) is not a "true Christian" just because he doesn't agree with a particular treatment of the grammar of the highest mountain text in Genesis IS CONTRARY TO THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS. (You really need to review the meaning of the Gospel as defined by Jesus.)

aman didn't say that hugh wasn't a true christian, but that he is not a true bible believer, which is true, the same as i don't believe much of the OT, and revelation in the NT. we are 'bible unbelieving christians'.
and i attend a bible unbelieving church.

The two terms are OFTEN treated as synonymous in that camp---because to not "believe the Bible" is to "not believe God."

That said, to say he is "not a Bible believer" simply because he sides with the Hebrew scholars who think that the proper translation states that the total height of the flood was 23 feet is idiotic. Just because honest translators reach two different conclusions does NOT mean the one group is refusing to believe the Bible. Absurd.

I used to think the Genesis text said that the flood exceeded the height of the highest mountain by 23 feet UNTIL I became fluent in Hebrew and realized the likely meaning of the text. So does that mean I ceased "to believe the Bible"?????

Rubbish.

hiscosmicgoldfish · Feb 20, 2013

verysincere said:
The two terms are OFTEN treated as synonymous in that camp---because to not "believe the Bible" is to "not believe God."

That said, to say he is "not a Bible believe" simply because he sides with the Hebrew scholars who think that the proper translation states that the total height of the flood was 23 feet is idiotic. Just because honest translators reach two different conclusions does NOT mean the one group is refusing to believe the Bible. Absurd.

hugh believes in a local flood, but he provides no evidence. i read this in his book about job. the flood account in the bible says that the highest mountains were covered. that's not possible with a local flood. the mountains of ararat would need to be covered, and 4000 years ago those mountains would be the same as today.
hugh dosn't get it, that the biblical account of creation is ancient world cosmology. he was challenged about it by ken ham, and ken ham has the obvious interpretation, that the sun etc were created later, after the light. the only explanation i can think of, is that hugh ross wants to remain as a bible believer, all of it, and then shoehorns in the whole bible to make it fit.

there is no middle ground, where liberal christians have not caved in to the doctrine of dawinism, so it is left to a few 'heretics' and YECs to try and defend creation. i agree with liberals, except that they have not examined the problems in darwinism, and they might as well go over with the athiests, as there is nothing left to believe in.
a god that uses random chance, dosn't have to exist at all.. chance alone can do it.

Aman777 · Feb 20, 2013

His:>>aman didn't say that hugh wasn't a true christian, but that he is not a true bible believer, which is true, the same as i don't believe much of the OT, and revelation in the NT. we are 'bible unbelieving christians'.
and i attend a bible unbelieving church.

Very:>>The two terms are OFTEN treated as synonymous in that camp---because to not "believe the Bible" is to "not believe God."

That said, to say he is "not a Bible believer" simply because he sides with the Hebrew scholars who think that the proper translation states that the total height of the flood was 23 feet is idiotic. Just because honest translators reach two different conclusions does NOT mean the one group is refusing to believe the Bible. Absurd.

I used to think the Genesis text said that the flood exceeded the height of the highest mountain by 23 feet UNTIL I became fluent in Hebrew and realized the likely meaning of the text. So does that mean I ceased "to believe the Bible"?????

Rubbish.

Dear Friends, I did not say that Hugh was not a Christian since I cannot see into his heart. I said he was not a Bible believer because he compromised what Scripture says in order to make it fit with his scientific views.

The world of Adam was totally and completely destroyed in the Flood. Second Peter 3:5-7 verifies this. The following verses are speaking of the Scoffers of the last days.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

The above verse indicates that the world of Adam was floating since it was in and out of the water.

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

The world of Adam, the world that THEN WAS perished, which in Greek means destroyed, totally. Isaiah tells us it was "clean dissolved."

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The heavens and earth WHICH ARE NOW are the same as were present at the time of Peter. At verse 10, we are told of the total destruction of our world.

Genesis agrees and shows us the world of Adam was made the 2nd Day. Gen. 1:6-8
Genesis 2:4 shows that God made other heavenS (PLural) on the 3rd Day.
This agrees with ll Corinthians 12:2 which tells us of the THIRD heaven.

Conclusion: The world of Adam was floating in Lake Van. The firmament had windows in the top and water bubbled up from below. When the windows were opened, the firmament sank and left the Ark in Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat.

This view agrees with Scripture since it shows that the Ark was 22 1/2 feet above the highest mountains of the first Earth on the 150th Day after the flood began. (Genesis 7:20-24) On the SAME 150th Day after the flood began, the Ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. Genesis 8:4

This is possible IF the Ark floated out of the firmament as the firmament sank and was clean dissolved in Lake Van. The world of Adam that then was was totally destroyed and the Ark, which was 450 feet long, was safe in the waters of Lake Van.

This explains WHY the Raven did not return to the Ark and WHY the Dove returned after 1 week to the Ark with an Olive leaf in it's beak. The birds simply flew to the shore of the Lake. With this explanation, many of the mysteries are explained and there is NO need to deny God's Holy Word.

God's Holy Word is the Truth in every way.

In Love,
Aman

verysincere · Feb 20, 2013

hiscosmicgoldfish said:
hugh believes in a local flood, but he provides no evidence. i read this in his book about job. the flood account in the bible says that the highest mountains were covered. that's not possible with a local flood. the mountains of ararat would need to be covered, and 4000 years ago those mountains would be the same as today.
hugh dosn't get it, that the biblical account of creation is ancient world cosmology. he was challenged about it by ken ham, and ken ham has the obvious interpretation, that the sun etc were created later, after the light. the only explanation i can think of, is that hugh ross wants to remain as a bible believer, all of it, and then shoehorns in the whole bible to make it fit.

there is no middle ground, where liberal christians have not caved in to the doctrine of dawinism, so it is left to a few 'heretics' and YECs to try and defend creation. i agree with liberals, except that they have not examined the problems in darwinism, and they might as well go over with the athiests, as there is nothing left to believe in.
a god that uses random chance, dosn't have to exist at all.. chance alone can do it.

When you start your post with a series of lies, there is no value to your absurd claims.

Genesis itself provides evidence for a regional flood. It refers to the ERETZ ("land") flooding. There is NO EVIDENCE that the entire "planet earth" was flooded.

As the old saying goes, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion---but not their own facts." Lying is not a sound basis for an argument.

Goodbye.

verysincere · Feb 20, 2013

Aman777 said:
The world of Adam was totally and completely destroyed in the Flood. Second Peter 3:5-7 verifies this.

Yes! Thank you for making my point! "The world of Adam" [and his lineage] is not the same as "planet earth". It is a particular ERETZ ("land")

Also, your own 2Peter 3 passages use the word KOSMOS and not GE! So that explicitly refers to the world of Adam/Noah and NOT "planet earth". The later would have required GE !

Thanks for the help. My work here is done.

hiscosmicgoldfish · Feb 20, 2013

verysincere said:
When you start your post with a series of lies, there is no value to your absurd claims.

As the old saying goes, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion---but not their own facts." Lying is not a sound basis for an argument.

Goodbye.

liar, liar, your pants are on fire?

SkyWriting · Feb 21, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
So what is your time-line then, since you claim that you are not a YEC but never seem to argue with them, but rather with everyone else?

I have no argument with Evolutionists who admit they take their stand on faith in their religion. YEC's freely admit their faith. And I do always point out that the scriptures do not place Creation week at time "zero" with seeds for a garden, Adam as a fertilized egg, and cooling lava to stand on.

Fascinated With God · Feb 21, 2013

SkyWriting said:
I have no argument with Evolutionists who admit they take their stand on faith in their religion.

So how does that account for all of your debates with me? I am a TE.

hiscosmicgoldfish · Feb 21, 2013

Starlight And A Young Earth - Dr. G. Charles Jackson (Dr. J.) - YouTube

Aman777 · Feb 21, 2013

hiscosmicgoldfish said:
Starlight And A Young Earth - Dr. G. Charles Jackson (Dr. J.) - YouTube

Dear His, I loved the presentation and agree with Dr. J. on many of the things he taught, such as Dark Energy. I also agree and have posted that Jesus is the cause of the origin of our world. I don't agree that we are the center of the Universe and I see our world as being very old.

I believe God changed the Energy, in which He dwells, into matter which inflated and formed our Cosmos. This was the 3rd Day according to Genesis 2:4, the same day the first earth was made. God's dating of the creation of life from the water on the 5th Day agrees with the emergence of bacteria on our planet some 3.7 Billion years ago, so I have no problem with the dating of the Big Bang. Scripture tells us about the LORD:

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Changing that Light into matter should be a simple matter for God to accomplish. I was encouraged by the agreement I had with most of the things Dr. J. had to say. Thank you for the link.

In Love,
Aman

hiscosmicgoldfish · Feb 22, 2013

it's the best lecture i've seen from a young earther. i think he is right about understanding that all these theories are not established fact. like the big bang and dark matter. hugh ross makes the mistake about dark matter, because it hasn't been proven to exist, and hugh has more of a naturalistic explanation for the universe. whereas it is more like god is actually doing stuff, and like stars and planets are not formed as the evolutionists claim.

also the number of comets is a strong proof that the solar system is young.
at the moment i am a middle earther. i don't trust the dates given by evos for the age of rocks. answers in genesis has been doing a lot of research, to prove that the rocks are in the thousands of years, rather than millions.

i had written off this YEC theory about starlight and time, but when you learn about it, it is wise to keep an open mind, i think. the strongest evidence for an older earth, is the carbon dating of coal, done by AIG, finding coal to be older than 40,000 years. one evidence given in the video, provides an age of the earth at about 2 million years. i need to do more research on the genetic finding on human origins, as that is suggesting an age of about 100,000 years. that would make a monkey out of the biblical geneaology, but if it's true, then we need to fess up and admit that the bible got something wrong.

i can't accept that the biblical flood is true, as described in the bible. i think it is impossible, and atheists make a pigs ear of the flood, because they can see that it was impossible. i reject other books that are in the bible, such as revelation and daniel. atheists can see that the flood account was cobbled together out of two flood stories. biblical critics have worked that out many years ago.

this is what reasons to believe say about human origins...

Molecular clock analyses of Mt DNA and Y Chromosomal DNA sequences place the origin of humanity around 130,000 years ago in East Africa.2 Based on the fragmentary fossil record, it appears as if the modern human form emerges around 100,000 years ago. Genetic diversity data also indicates that humanity arose from a small population traceable to a single man and single woman, in line with the biblical creation account. Yet, based on the archeological record, modern humans sophisticated behavior apparently did not manifest until around 40,000-50,000 years ago. In other words, there seems to be a gap of 50,000 years between the emergence of the modern human form and modern human behavior.

Fascinated With God · Feb 22, 2013

hiscosmicgoldfish said:
...and like stars and planets are not formed as the evolutionists claim.

Biology and astronomy are two completely different subjects.

hiscosmicgoldfish said:
also the number of comets is a strong proof that the solar system is young.

How so? The evidence is for an enormous bombardment 4 billion years ago, but planets and moons that have weathering of some kind like Earth and Io, show a very low level of impact craters.

hiscosmicgoldfish said:
i can't accept that the biblical flood is true, as described in the bible. i think it is impossible, and atheists make a pigs ear of the flood, because they can see that it was impossible. i reject other books that are in the bible, such as revelation and daniel. atheists can see that the flood account was cobbled together out of two flood stories. biblical critics have worked that out many years ago.

Science can explain the Flood. While a comet impact in the ocean would only produce a mega-tsunami around the periphery of that ocean and not on the other side of the Earth, it would throw up so much water vapor into the upper atmosphere that it would produce global non-stop torrential rains for weeks.

So I think that when the Bible says that the flood covered the mountains, that was actually referring to a mega-tsunami that was localized mainly to a single ocean (the Indian Ocean). But the continuous heavy rain WAS in fact world wide.

Ronald · Feb 22, 2013

troodon said:
troodon said:

"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine

Click to expand...

I'm curious, how can you post something that is anti-Christian/Creationist and then claim to be one?
Are you posing as a Christian, a tare amongst the wheat?

hiscosmicgoldfish · Feb 22, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
Biology and astronomy are two completely different subjects.

So I think that when the Bible says that the flood covered the mountains, that was actually referring to a mega-tsunami that was localized mainly to a single ocean (the Indian Ocean). But the continuous heavy rain WAS in fact world wide.

by evos i mean the atheistic evo paradigm, which goes across the whole gamut, the big bang, naturalistic explanations for the formation of planets and stars, origin of life, evolution of life. despite what evos say, there is an evolutionary world view, which is not just about biology. call it the naturalistic paradigm, if you prefer.

i think the biblical flood is a legend, based on an actual mega-flood of the sumer region. the writers of the flood account in genesis made most of the details up. there was the original flood account of the sumerians, and the hebrews wrote in/fabricated their version, probably during the babylonian exile. i don't believe it. i think they have given attributes to god which are not true, claiming that god would kill everyone, children, animals etc. because of the evil of 'all men' that's silly and untrue, in my opinion.

ChetSinger · Feb 22, 2013

hiscosmicgoldfish said:
by evos i mean the atheistic evo paradigm, which goes across the whole gamut, the big bang, naturalistic explanations for the formation of planets and stars, origin of life, evolution of life. despite what evos say, there is an evolutionary world view, which is not just about biology. call it the naturalistic paradigm, if you prefer.

True, that. There's an entire world view where naturalism is used to explain everything we see. It's thorough and all-encompassing.

Papias · Feb 23, 2013

HCG wrote:

this is what reasons to believe say about human origins...

Molecular clock analyses of Mt DNA and Y Chromosomal DNA sequences place the origin of humanity around 130,000 years ago in East Africa.

OK so far......

Genetic diversity data also indicates that humanity arose from a small population traceable to a single man and single woman, in line with the biblical creation account.

Simply false. Anyone who is even a little familiar with the genetic evidence knows that Mt eve and Y Adam were never the only people around, that they lived many thousands of years apart (in fact, Y adam is a distant child of Mt eve), and that the genetic evidence has confirmed again and again that the human population was never less than 20,000 to 40,000.

Now, if a website or group is putting up such obvious and blatant falsehoods, one has to realize they are either completely incompetent or craven liars. Either way, you aren't helping your own knowledge by listening to them.

I agree that RTB is more correct than AIG, but that's hardly saying anyting. It's like saying that I'm a better basketball player than my 1 year old son, who can barely walk.

In His truth-

Papias

hiscosmicgoldfish · Feb 23, 2013

Papias said:
HCG wrote:

I agree that RTB is more correct than AIG, but that's hardly saying anyting. It's like saying that I'm a better basketball player than my 1 year old son, who can barely walk.

In His truth-

Papias

I think the RTB are trying to fit the scientific evidence with the bible, and i personally don't think that is possible. I think they are being hopeful that they can get a resolution, to still believe that the bible is the word of god.

But for me, i have to write off parts of the bible, as simply false, such as the global flood... i can't believe that anymore.
I spent years studying revelation and daniel, and at the end of it, my conclusion... both books are false. that might be heresy for many christians, but that is what i believe to be true.

a lot of christians think that when you start to write off bits of the bible, that the whole thing starts to cave in, and you'v got nothing left. maybe so, but that is better than continuing to believe in myths, legends and untruths, in my opinion.

Papias · Feb 23, 2013

HCG wrote:

a lot of christians think that when you start to write off bits of the bible, that the whole thing starts to cave in, and you'v got nothing left. maybe so, but that is better than continuing to believe in myths, legends and untruths, in my opinion.

I don't think that revisions in interpretation mean that the whole thing caves in. I agree with you that we sould never pretend to believe things that are demonstrably untruths, or that myths are literally true. In fact, I suspect that a lot of those who claim to believe them are in denial of the fact that they don't actually, deep down, still believe them. They are, in those cases, just pretending to still believe them. After all, we can't choose to really believe things by force of will.

Have a good day-

Papias

How old is the Earth?

Liberal Anglican

Exegete/Linguist

Exegete/Linguist

Liberal Anglican

Christian

Exegete/Linguist

Exegete/Linguist

Liberal Anglican

The Librarian

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

Liberal Anglican

Christian

Liberal Anglican

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

Exhortations

Liberal Anglican

Well-Known Member

Listening to TW4

Liberal Anglican

Listening to TW4

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency