How old is the world?

[Jet Black]

If you don't like our stand for Scripture here you are welcome to stay and listen, and even post questions and comments. But you may find more agreement at Talk Origins. This is a Christian Forum.

and this is the creations and evolution section, which is open to anyone. please don't play your appeal to authority here, when you have none that is relevant.

 

[Floodnut]

One of the meanings of "expire" is to die. It also means to breathe out. To exhale.
From Merriam Webster: * * * *
If the Bible is "breathed out" by God, then expire is the more suitable word.

I forget whether Prax is actually a Bible beleiver or not, but he is certainly apt in quoting appropriate passages out of Webster. Problem is however that we are talking about the meaning of a Koine Greek word. The main meaning of Expire is die, breathe ones last and this is not at all the sense of the Greek word in II Timothy 3:16. Perhaps Prax would be so kind as to go to Thayers or Bauer Arndt and Gingrech and tell us the meaning given by a Koine Greek Dictionary.

The Scriptures were Breathed out by God, and Holy men of old spoke and wrote as they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit.

 

[f U z ! o N]

but what if God made Genesis simple enough to understand for us mere mortals that he had to write it in 7 days so that we would understand at that time period. if he said "i did this through the big bang and such" it would confuse many people.

 

[Floodnut]

Floodnut had said that when dinosaurs and men co-existed men were generally vegetarian. After the Flood they became meat-eaters. Freethinker spues his human knowledge in contradiction to the plain statements of Scripture:

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.

He says that vegetarianism can't be verified, but he has himself asserted that no spear points are found in dinosaurs which flourished primarily in the pre-flood world when humans were vegetarians generally. The first humans on the earth were gardeners, tillers of the soil. And within four generations of the beginning they were using metal and making musical instruments, and this was while the first generation was still living.

Cities (civilization) developed with Cain who build a city populated by his sons and daughters and some of his brothers and sisters perhaps, as well as cousins, nephews and neices. This began ONE GENERATION from the beginning, 6000 years ago.

Animals were killed as sacrifices and their skins were used for clothing, but humans also wove cloth early on (Genesis 4). Freethinker believes that the name of the first humans establishes what they did? "As their name implies" Their names were Adam and Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, and their brothers and sisters, as well as Enosh, Jared and others. There names are given in Genesis since they were LITERAL PEOPLE six thousand years ago when the earth was first created.

No doubt after the flood for a few years it would have been common to use bones and stones to kill animals until they could set up the joint efforts necessary to mine and smelt metals. And you do agree with the Bible when you assert that killing a big dino would have been a life event like pygmies killing an elephats or a Masai killing a lion. And I am glad to see this poster admitting that not all dinosaurs were huge. Usually when it comes to loading the ark, evoutionist opponents like to set up a straw man like, "How could Noah catch all those huge raptors, and altosaurii and Ceratopsians and how could he fit them all on the ark?", as if the were all born huge and never existed as smaller reptilian specimens.

Dinosaurs and humans co-existed from the beginning of the Creation, about 6000 years ago, until the flood and for several years after the flood until most dinosaur species became extinct.

 

[Floodnut]

Floodnut had said, "God says the earth is 6000 years old"

Do you have a direct quote from the Capo de Tuti Capi Himself? Chapter and verse, please...

No Nate there is no direct quote. It takes belief in the Bible to see it, and you must be willing to read and do some simple math (adding numbers, remember that?) to see this fact. It is found in Genesis chapters 4 through 10, combined with I Kings 6:1.

But then you probably are quite well aware of how the biblical chronology is derived, and couldn't care less. You set up this artificial criteria that we must have a single chapter and verse for someting to be the Word of God. In fact the correct approach to Scirpture is to take it all as true, just as did the Savior (for those of us here at CF who hold to the Nicene Creed).

 

[f U z ! o N]

well what i don't understand is this. if everything in the bible is 100% true why can't science back it up? why is there so much debate. God doesn't lie, that goes against His will. so why in the world do the events in the bible not line up with science?
just a question

 

[z3ro]

well what i don't understand is this. if everything in the bible is 100% true why can't science back it up? why is there so much debate. God doesn't lie, that goes against His will. so why in the world do the events in the bible not line up with science?
just a question

What a great question; my answer would be, one is wrong.

 

[Floodnut]

God does not "say" the Earth is 6000 years old, Floodnut interprets the text of the bible in such a way that he is able to deduce the age of the Earth as 6000 years. Quite different.

If I interpreted the same text to mean the earth was millions of years old, as somebody already has in this thread, and follow Floodnut's "logic", I could present that number as the "word of God", too.

Unless god SAYS it, you can't say God said it.

God says in the plain and simple sense of the language that the earth is 6000 years old. Freethinker believes the Bible is bunk, so his opinions about how to read it are pathetic nonsense and irrelevant. You can move verses around and arrange letters and words in any text to make it say that Bananas are God and Jesus is the Devil and computers were used by elephants to dig holes in bleu chees in Freethinker's head, but the plain and simple sense of God's Word says the earth is about 6000 years old. Freethinker, because his name defines who he is can imagine the word of his god to say whatever he wants.

The Word of God is what the grammatical historical plain sense of scirpture declares. And God says the earth is about 6000 years old.

 

[Floodnut]

Jesus also said that the smallest seed was the mustard seed.

Sometimes the plainest reading is not the correct one.

Among seeds that are tithed (the seeds in the mind of his audience) can you tell me which one is smaller than mustard? The plain and simple reading of Scripture, rather than imposing your supposed scientific knowledge makes this text clear. Mold spores are smaller seeds, single cells are smaller seeds, but this is not what Jesus was talking about was it? He was talking about things that are grown as herbs in a garden in Judaea. duh. The simplest reading is the correct one, taking it in the grammatical historical sense is the correct approach. Hey go visit some of the Bible Contradiction sites and bring some more of those difficulties over here Professor Paster. Don't know if I'll answer them all though, since the main topic here is the age of the earth.

And while sometimes the supposed plainest reading may not always be the correct one, in the case of the age of the earth this is how Jesus and Peter and Jude and John and Paul took it. God says the earth is about 6000 years old. (I wish I knew how to have that as a macro)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Floodnut had said that when dinosaurs and men co-existed men were generally vegetarian. After the Flood they became meat-eaters. Freethinker spues his human knowledge in contradiction to the plain statements of Scripture:

snip snip

Dinosaurs and humans co-existed from the beginning of the Creation, about 6000 years ago, until the flood and for several years after the flood until most dinosaur species became extinct.

one of the extraordinary problems with religion is that it often has no corrective feedback to reality. It is like our dreams where we can be conquering heroes and great lovers or whatever we can imagine.

but the real world is out there and as a Christian i understand that God both created it and providentially sustains it moment to moment. however it is obvious that it is possible for Scriptural interpretation to be so divorced from reality that it is like a dream, compliant to whatever the dreamer imagines the world to be. That is the take home message from this posting. Ignore modern science at your own risk of being a sleepwalker, interpreting the Scriptures however your feverish brain directs you without reference to the real world.

As for me, i will defend the two books of God metaphor, and welcome science's investigation in this world, if only to keep the imagative dreamer under some control.

sad. but all to obvious.
dinosaurs died off at least 50 million years ago.
modern homo sapiens date no more than 500,000 years ago.
that is 2 orders of magnitude off to co exist.
no, man did not hunt dinosaurs, that is the imagination of someone disconnected from the real world.

......

 

[Floodnut]

This is an amazing statement, it appears to be so simple: you can't pick and choose what to believe, it is an all or nothing proposition.

but it is not.

First, you have elevated a particular interpretation of Gen 1 and the Flood narrative to absolute truth without question. So effectively you are saying, in part, unless you believe exactly as i do about these two events: Creation and the Flood then you are not believing in anything in the Bible.

Second, is this extraordinary error of composition. If something in the Bible is not exactly true in your interpretation then none of the Bible is faithful or inspired or true. What happens when you misinterpret something? according to your line of reasoning everything in the Bible is suspect. The problem is that you do misinterpret the Scriptures somewhere, probably lots of somewheres, we all do. We just don't know which wheres. Yet this logically leads you to deny the value of the whole Book because you are not infallible. What you are doing is to transfer your inability to arrive at absolute truth to the Scriptures. wow. is that really what you want to do?

Lastly, as has been addressed here many times, there are good hermeneutical reasons for believing that the Creation is not a scientific account in the manner of a newspapermans report of the events and that there are good reasons for understanding the Flood as local in extent not global.

But your big problem is to confuse your personal interpretation of the Bible with God's, saying that you essentially have access to that heavenly absolutely true interpretation and that this is supported by the fact that it can not be otherwise and still have an authoritative Scripture. gong.

but this conversation ought to be on another forum.
....

Bottom line for Williams is the Bible is a mystery book full of nonsensical words and phrases which have no definite meaning. The best heremeneuticists all agree that the plain and simple sense of Genesis is that the earth is 6000 years old but they choose to set it aside in favor of weaker interpretations because of the supposed findings of Evolution.

If we can't believe what Jesus says about Creation in the Past, then How can we take seriously what he says about heaven in the future?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I have no idea why anti flood advocates present this as a "problem" for us to answer. Surely it is possible for plant life to be inbedded in many layers of sediment based on the circumstances of that particular area. ie was there seismic activity present?, was there sedment washed from mountain areas nearby?, what was the circumstances of receeding water ? etc. etc.

It's a problem because the superposition of paleosols is incompatible with a continuous global flood event. The formation of soil requires sedimentary hiatus and weathering.

When you have the superposition of say two paleosols (and there are examples of numerous vertically superposed) between which there are sandstone and limestone formations, this tells you that the deposition did not occur via a continuous global flooding event.

To excuse them as being pre-flood, syn-flood, or post-flood necessitates answers to these two questions:

1. Which stratum or sequence of strata in the sedimentary rock record indicate this event?

2. What scientific evidence demonstrates that this deposition occurred when you claim it did?

Until those questions are answered, you have nothing for your position alongside numerous refutations of it.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I don't deny scientific evidence.

Yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't ignore it every time it's presented for your benefit.

All you have done is proclaim that you're right (not to mention an implied assumption of your own infallibility) by repeating the same things over and over without any evidence and without addressing the evidence that disproves your position. Of course your attitude of immaturity and arrogance does not lead to any reasonable discussion either.

Also you should be aware that your position means that Genesis has been disproved and the Bible has lost all credibility. Really the only position you're supporting with your "arguments" is atheism.

 

[Floodnut]

1: You still haven't given a chapter and verse. It's pretty obvious that God hasn't said the Earth is 6,000 years old.

2: Is it wrong to study God's creation?

Who made the rule that Floodnut must give a chapter and verse? Where does God require a chapter and verse. Christians believe in the Bible. The plain sense of Scripture is that the Earth is 6000 years old. It is great to study creation, as long as you don't allow the natural revelation to lord it over the special revelation of Scripture and the Word of Jesus Christ. It is quite obvioius that God has said the Earth is about 6000 years old, but of course you know this and choose not to believe it.

 

[Floodnut]

Floodnut, saying this as a Christian, please get off my side. You're making the faith look absolutely bleedin' ridiculous.

Anti-evangelism at its best.

Dude, I don't know if I am on your side. If you believe the Earth is about 6000 years old then you are on my side, maybe, but you could be a muslim and many of them also believe the earth is 6000 years old.

If you believe Jesus is God then I am on your side with respect to that truth. If you believe the Holy Spirit is God, and Co-equal with the Father and the Son, then I am on your side with respect to that truth. If you believe in the penal substitutionary Blood atonement, then I am on your side with respect to that truth. Truth is truth. We can't just pick and choose which side to be on because we feel we make Jesus look ridiculous.

Jesus held to a young earth, a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal world wide flood. I believe in Jesus. I would not ask you to leave the Christian Faith just because of your compromises with Evolutionism. You are just misguided and wrong, unless I am mistaken in assuming that you reject the YEC approach to Scripture . . .

 

[f U z ! o N]

i don't recall Jesus EVER stating what he believed about the world being made. i think you are putting words in His mouth. basically you are saying that everyone who doesn't believe what YOU believe is wrong. that is extremely arrogant. and instead of saying the earth is 6000 years old PROVE IT. and please DON'T USE ANY PRATTS! that is your challenge. prove that it is that old by NOT using the bible.

 

[Floodnut]

Floodnut - all this talk of "plain sense of Scripture" basically means that you, for some reason, think that the best way of interpreting a text written thousands of years ago is the modernist, literalist method that is the default interpretation of a non-fiction text in the modern age, although it hasn't always been.

Why would you think that?

Besides, you have another problem. If the Bible really is saying that the world was literally, scientifically and historically created in six days six thousand years ago, all you really show is that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Isn't that rather a dangerous strategy?

The Bible believing approach to Scripture is called the Grammatical-historical approach. The best way to interpret the text of Scripture is to interpret it according to the type of literature it is, whether poetry or narrative, and to deterine the sense intended by the writers, and by subsequent inspired writers who describe how they viewed the text in question. We call this "letting Scripture interpret Scripture," and rather than being a dangerous strategy, it is the ONLY SAFE strategy.

The Plain sense of Genesis as it is written and as it was taken by others who wrote about it, UNDER infallible divine inspiration, is that the earth was created about 6000 years ago.

 

[f U z ! o N]

as i said please prove it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Plain sense of Genesis as it is written and as it was taken by others who wrote about it, UNDER infallible divine inspiration, is that the earth was created about 6000 years ago.

this hermeneutic originated at Princeton in the early 19thC as a result of forces in American society and pressures on Biblical theology from the rise of modern geology. It is best described as the man in the pew, Scottish common sense, literal hermeneutic and is not an essential part of the grammatical historical hermeneutic as you propose. Preference for the literal is a gift from Luther in his battles with the Middle ages 4 fold (the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the eschatological.*)
the best source on the rise of this hermeneutic is Mark Noll and _America's God_

what is interesting about this 6K claim is that it wasn't even accepted at Princeton in the late 19thC, being far too Biblically aware to posit that the chronologies are designed to give modern dating technics.
see a nice essay on this at:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CSRYoung.html


*see-
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/hermen.html

 

[Floodnut]

God does not "say" the Earth is 6000 years old, Floodnut interprets the text of the bible in such a way that he is able to deduce the age of the Earth as 6000 years. Quite different.

If I interpreted the same text to mean the earth was millions of years old, as somebody already has in this thread, and follow Floodnut's "logic", I could present that number as the "word of God", too.

Unless god SAYS it, you can't say God said it.

Sure I can say God says it. God says it, God says it and says it, and you chose not to believe it. Your logic enables you to make the Bible say whatever you want to make it say, with no guiding principle of interpretation, except your own statement that the Bible is BUNK.

God says the Earth is about 6000 years old.