How old is the world?

A Freethinker · Jul 12, 2005

Floodnut said:
Are you sure that is what it means? Maybe it is figurative? a metaphor? Maybe Jesus was wrong. Besides, are you accusing me of judging? Aren't you judging?

It is good to know that you actually can use the Bible when it suits you, but maybe I don't think it is accurate on such matters? < tongue in cheek symbol

It's not that I'm using it to suit me, I'm just answering your question.

Floodnut said:
Is there something wrong with judging?

Also, I am judging. I'm judging you a fool, along with many others on this forum, and it doesn't matter because I'm not a Christian. The Bible can say whatever it wants, and it doesn't apply to me.

However, it does apply to you as a Christian. Thus, I am only using your own document to answer a question that you asked, for the dual purposes of making you look stupid and proving a point (that you aren't familiar with your own religion).

About the interpretation; I don't care. The bible is bunk in my opinion, and only as relevant as the Iliad; as an insight into the culture of the time it was written, not to mention some interesting stories.

I'm sorry that you are so upset by being beaten at your own game.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

A Freethinker said:
If it was "the same" for all this time then we wouldn't have had to translate it multiple times into different editions, and have to deal with different denominations drawing opposing interpretations from the same text.

The Scripture is the same. Translations, editions, denominations change. Language changes and the Word of God does not. We have the same Hebrew and Greek text before us that came from the hand of the original human authors. but this is a discussion of Inspiration and should be addressed elsewhere in CF, unless you can relate it more directly to the age of the earth.

A Freethinker · Jul 12, 2005

Floodnut said:
The Scripture is the same. Translations, editions, denominations change. Language changes and the Word of God does not. We have the same Hebrew and Greek text before us that came from the hand of the original human authors.

Are you aware that the words 'Sheol' and the Old Hebrew for 'grave' were both mistranslated into 'Hell' in parts of the bible? I think the words 'Grave' and 'Hell' are two very different things, hardly "the same".

There are entire pages dedicated to mistranslations in the bible. You won't really know what it's saying unless you are fluent in Old Hebrew.

Please don't try to tell me what is and is not relevant in this forum; your nonsensical posts are the only things truly irrelevant.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

f U z ! o N said:
the thing is floodnut how can you continouly deny scientific evidence? if God spoke from the heavens and said the world is OLD would it affect your faith? why is everyone SO close minded. its ok to be a little bit open minded on some things. heck, we will never figure out how old the earth is. why do christians take different views as a threat to the bible? it is not a threat. it is a discussion. floodnut you are extremely arrogant and incredibly close minded. im so sick of the closed minded christians. it drives me insane. if the age of the earth affects your views of God you have incredibly weak faith

I don't deny scientific evidence. I interpret it differently than you do. Just like you interpret Scripture differently than I do. If God HAD said it is OLD (and he did, but 6000 years old), then I would believe that. It is about taking God at his word.

We are close minded, just as evolutionists are closeminded. We chose to stay with the Word of God and are closeminded about that. They choose to stay with their interpretation of what they observe. They will not accept any idea or evidence that does not make the world old.

I have already done the math, and studied my Hebrew Grammar, and examined the views of Jesus and the Apostles, and I have concluded that if I am to trust Jesus about the Future, then I had better trust him about the Past. You can call me arrogant, but I see that the arrogant are those who reject the plain and simple sense of Scripture (which is how Jesus took it by the way). It is intriguing to me how you can imagine that one who wants to take Jesus at his word is now considered weak in faith.

God called Noah strong in Faith when he believed God and built the Ark to the saving of his house, and provided a seed for the new world. IF he had chosen to believe the "scientists" he would have said, A FLOOD TO THE DESTROY THE WHOLE EARTH? IMPOSSIBLE. But he moved with fear and prepared an Ark to the saving of his house (Hebrews 11:1-6).

How can you say, "We will never figure out how old the earth is?" Go to Genesis read it and believe it. God told you how old it is. Then interpret the evidence with that Divinely provided presuppostion, just as evolutionist interpret the same evidence with their faulty presuppositions. Be strong in faith and give glory to God who did it just as he said he did it.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

A Freethinker said:
Not only is this a good point, but it's an original point. Good observation.

Also, Floodnut is not aware of certain biblical passages condemning man judging man. More to your point, he isn't even good at believing in his own faith.

Of course freethinker knows that floodnut is aware of the judging passages, and he is also aware of the passages that command us to discern truth and judge good and evil as well.

Freethinker also knows that the responses of Floodnut to the accusations of judging were entirely tongue in cheek, as was clearly stated in both cases.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

A Freethinker said:
Are you saying that all evolutionists ignore Scientific Method? What a foolish concept that is. One of the most respected and verified theories in existance was discovered and is solely suppored by people who ignore the Scientific Method, but I suppose you are going to say that this is a problem afflicting only the Evolutionist community, and not the Creationist community.

Go back to the post to which I was responding. It was just a 4!4 for tat comment. You make statements about creationists, blanket general statements, and then I say it in YOUR VERY WORDS about evolutionists, and you jump on me. duh.

A Freethinker · Jul 12, 2005

Floodnut said:
Of course freethinker knows that floodnut is aware of the judging passages, and he is also aware of the passages that command us to discern truth and judge good and evil as well.

Freethinker also knows that the responses of Floodnut to the accusations of judging were entirely tongue in cheek, as was clearly stated in both cases.

So you're saying that I was wrong in assuming what you do and do not know by assuming what I do and do not know? That's a paradox.

I don't play your games Floodnut, but I do listen to reason. All we really expect from you is more nonsense and fact-dodging. If you could work some real logic into some of your posts, more people would be inclined to respect both you and your opinions more.

Floodnut said:
You make statements about creationists, blanket general statements, and then I say it in YOUR VERY WORDS about evolutionists, and you jump on me. duh.

The difference there is that Evolutionists generally use the Scientific Method, and Creationists generally do not. It's just an observation from my point in space.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

Grengor said:
They describe how long it took to create the Earth and Heavens, but they don't say how much time has passed untill the birth of Jesus Christ, in fact, isn't there a gap between gen 1 and 2? It doesn't say, after gen 1, "and 5 days later, eden was created".

PLEASE actually read the passage. No, there is not a gap. Hebrew Grammar will not allow it. And it does say how long the time was from Adam to the Flood. And then from the Birth of Shem to the birth of Abraham, and then from Abraham to the time of the Kings. and then there are eclispses and other elements that correlate the timetables. You must be willing to work through it, but it is clear: 6000 years. There is nothing about five days later eden was created.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

f U z ! o N said:
2 peter says this
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance

so therefore if every day is 1000 years to God then 365 days times 2005 years

365 days times 2005 years=365,000 days
365,000 days times 1000 years to God=365,000,000?
so therfore the earth is very old!

sorry, the text says LIKE, clearly a metaphor. And it goes both ways, 1000 years is like a day and a day is like a 1000 years, so it is not a math equation here.

When God speaks of the life span of a man he speaks of days AND years and months proving that this is a literal usage in Genesis chapters 4 through 10 in the genealogies and dates for the Flood.

Even to suggest that since Genesis says 6 days it really means 6000 years of creation, it is still a far cry from 4.7 billion years. But the sense of Genesis remains literal as indicated by the Hebrew grammar and Vocabulary there.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

f U z ! o N said:
t-rex on the ark? im sure it ate everything in there

Heeheheh. No, it didn't eat everything there. Like most reptiles it could go for a long time without eating. And the Bible says that they went on two by two and they came off two by two. But this is a Noah's Ark question. The Bible says they were all on there, the lion and the lamb, the rabbit and the bear. They co-existed, just like animals fleeing from a tsunami or a forest fire.

Why would God send it on the Ark to eat every thing on board? That was funny.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
actually inspired means "breathed inward" not outward, but the word expired was already taken.

....

Actually, the passage in II Timothy 3:16 says breathed out, and expired is not a correct translation since it means "died." But this is a question of the doctrine of Inspiration and should be treated elsewhere in CF, unless you can show how it relates to the Age of the Earth.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

A Freethinker said:
Then why have we (unlike MANY remains of extinct creatures that lived alongside humans) not found a SINGLE dinosaur fossil with a spear/arrowhead wound? Many other creatures have been found with such bone scars, thus proving their coexistance with man.

How exactly does something become "extinct for the most part"?

Men did not generally eat meat before the flood so of course there would be no point wounds. What is a dinosaur? A terrible lizard. A few examples survive, such as Crocs and Komodos, and Alligators which lived along with Trex, but did not go extinct like t rex.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

A Freethinker said:
How exactly does something become "extinct for the most part"?

Dinosaurs are not a species. They are a group of speicies. So if not all of them are extinct, then as a group the speicies within that group became extinct for the most part. Don't you belive that most giant lizards are extinct for the most part?

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

f U z ! o N said:
so what about multiple dating systems giving similar numbers?

AND what about the same dating system giving diverse numbers to the material from the SAME object!

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

mikeynov said:
* * * * *
But I'm sure the usual answers apply here - people are dumb, the fall, fallibility, the fall, God's word is final, etc.

Yes of course, God's word is final, and it is also the beginning point, so there.

f U z ! o N · Jul 12, 2005

true floodnut
i belive Genesis literally i just like looking at other viewpoints! quite a debate!

Praxiteles · Jul 12, 2005

Floodnut said:
Actually, the passage in II Timothy 3:16 says breathed out, and expired is not a correctly translation since it means "died." But this is a question of the doctrine of Inspiration and should be treated elsewhere in CF, unless you can show how it relates to the Age of the Earth.

One of the meanings of "expire" is to die. It also means to breathe out. To exhale.

From Merriam Webster:

Merriam Webster Dictionary said:
Main Entry: in·spire

Pronunciation: in-'spIr
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·spired; in·spir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French inspirer, from Latin inspirare, from in- + spirare to breathe
transitive senses
1 a : to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration b : to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on <was particularly inspired by the Romanticists> c : to spur on : [size=-1]IMPEL[/size], [size=-1]MOTIVATE[/size] ****reats don't necessarily inspire people to work> d : [size=-1]AFFECT[/size] <seeing the old room again inspired him with nostalgia>
2 a archaic : to breathe or blow into or upon b archaic : to infuse (as life) by breathing
3 a : to communicate to an agent supernaturally b : to draw forth or bring out ****oughts inspired by a visit to the cathedral>
4 : [size=-1]INHALE [/size]1
5 a : [size=-1]BRING ABOUT[/size], [size=-1]OCCASION[/size] ****e book was inspired by his travels in the Far East> b : [size=-1]INCITE[/size]
6 : to spread (rumor) by indirect means or through the agency of another
intransitive senses : [size=-1]INHALE[/size]

Merriam Webster said:
Main Entry: ex·pire

Pronunciation: ik-'spIr, oftenest for intransitive sense 3 and transitive sense 2 ek-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ex·pired; ex·pir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French expirer, from Latin exspirare, from ex- + spirare to breathe
intransitive senses
1 : to breathe one's last breath : [size=-1]DIE[/size]
2 : to come to an end
3 : to emit the breath
transitive senses
1 obsolete : [size=-1]CONCLUDE[/size]
2 : to breathe out from or as if from the lungs
3 archaic : [size=-1]EMIT[/size]

If the Bible is "breathed out" by God, then expire is the more suitable word.

Floodnut · Jul 12, 2005

mikeynov said:
No, God doesn't "say" that. That's your "plain" interpretation.

Given the enormity of bible scholars who understand the subject differently, I don't think you're in any position to be speaking directly on behalf of God. Even suggesting that you are is the ultimate arrogance.

The plain simple sense of the Scripture is that earth is 6000 years old. Even old earth promoters, opponents of YEC, agree with that.

And you are being arrogant to pronnounce on me as being arrogant, and you are also being arrogant to assert that my simple approach to Scripture is arrogant.

God says the earth is about 6000 years old.

A Freethinker · Jul 12, 2005

Floodnut said:
Men did not generally eat meat before the flood so of course there would be no point wounds.

Another assumption that you cannot possibly verify. The first humans on Earth were hunter/gatherers, who did as their name implies. This was before the technology necessary for Agriculture and thus Civilization was developed. Men would have hunted them not just for meat, but for skins and bones for use in shelters and weaponry, much like they did the Mammoth. If nothing else, tackling such a challenge as a large dinosaur would surely be some sort of spiritual quest for any prehistoric man, again like the Mammoth.

Not all dinosaurs were huge, infact most were not. Easily killable. Ancient man took down megafauna more "terrible" than most dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than to reptiles. If you want something interesting to explain with a Creationist point of view, look up the Archaeopteryx. It's a flying, feathered dinosaur; a transitional form.

Praxiteles · Jul 12, 2005

While the word dinosaur literally translates as terrible lizard, the dinosaurs are in fact not lizards. Lizards are a different kind of reptile.

How old is the world?

Active Member

Veteran

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

I fall like a sparrow and fly like a kite

PraxAce

Veteran

Active Member

PraxAce

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency