How to explain 13.8 billion years?

[dad]

I noticed that you didn't answer my question:

Just out of curiosity, how does YOUR bible translate 2 Chr. 21:19? Were the translators of your bible wrong?​

Point?

 

[Queller]

If you had some bible case I suspect we would have seen it by now. You are in no position to question a solid bible case apparently. But, go ahead, make my day...

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[benelchi]

Point?

Point is that my bible reads "two days"

‎ וּכְעֵתָ צֵ֙את הַקֵּ֜ץ לְיָמִ֣ים שְׁנַ֗יִם יָצְא֤וּ מֵעָיו֙ עִם־חָלְי֔וֹ וַיָּ֖מָת בְּתַחֲלֻאִ֣ים (2 Chr. 21:19 BHS)
​

However, translators recognize that יום has to be understood in context, and no English bible that I know of reads "two days." I am absolutely sure that yours does not. So again, I ask how does YOUR bible translate this passage? Were the translators of your bible wrong?

 

[dad]

Thank you for proving my point.

If you had some bible case I suspect we would have seen it by now. You are in no position to question a solid bible case apparently. But, go ahead, make my day...

 

[Queller]

?? Where does this come in? You mean if there was a forceful violent eruption from under the earth? What, we would expect some iron nickel meteorite?

Because that is what kind of meteorite formed the Chixulub Crater, a large, technically Carbonaceous chondrite meteorite.

And you're the one proposing that this had to come from the eruption of the "fountains of the deep".

Well, some claim that if all the impacts happened in a few thousand years we would be dead. You should be clear what you claim I guess.

I was speaking to your scenario of all the impact craters we see on earth happening at the same time and not wiping out all life on earth because of the flood waters.

Yes, in reality, if all the impact craters we see on earth happened at the same time within the last 4,000 years, life as we know it would not exist.

Why would all these have to be flood era impacts? The main issue is what state existed when they fell. Or, if the big one in Mexico were a fountain of the deep remnant, why would we expect it to be the same os all other areas on earth? There was great mountain building and uplift, and continents wafting around real fast and etc..presumably after the flood!

All claims without a shred of evidence to support them.

Yes I know they assume time exists where stars are! But I know they do not know that. So we have NO idea how many miles away any deep space object is. It it were 3 light years in distance (not time) you wouldn't know. You might assume it was 100 or q billion light years.

You're the one who said it was 3 light years away. I'm going by the scenario you proposed.

Nope! The distance is measured how?

By you and what you told me about this hypothetical fist-sized supernova.

Time is involved and the assumption time is homogenous..no? FORGET ALL distances to stars. You do not really know after all. Your whole idea of creation is dead wrong!

If it was a lot closer, how would you know the size?

Because you told me that the supernova was the size of a fist. Is the average size of a fist different in your reality? Were fist sizes different by orders of magnitude in the "past state"?

Are you seriously criticizing me for using the information you gave me to address your concerns?

 

[Queller]

If you had some bible case I suspect we would have seen it by now. You are in no position to question a solid bible case apparently. But, go ahead, make my day...

You continue to prove my point. You might want to stop digging.

 

[Queller]

Would you classify this verse as "allegorical?"

"In the course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony. His people made no fire in his honor, like the fires made for his fathers." (2 Chr. 21:19 ESV)​

Sounds like a pretty good description of colorectal cancer to me, especially given the state of diagnostic medicine 3,000 years ago.

 

[Queller]

I noticed that you didn't answer my question:

Just out of curiosity, how does YOUR bible translate 2 Chr. 21:19? Were the translators of your bible wrong?​

I'll be surprised if you ever get a straight answer. Ignoring simple questions is a standard play in dad's book.

 

[rjs330]

Even three or four people is enough to break the telephone chain.

Then where are the originals?

Of course I believe in the spiritual. What does that have to do with the question I asked? Are you claiming that Satan's temptations of Jesus were not literal events? How do you know?

God's word is true. Man's interpretation of that Word is fallible.

God's word is true? Which one? The original or the copies? If the copies are that far off then we can say we don't know what God's word ever said. It all could be a farce. I mean the originals could have said, God created the earth in 13 billion years and somehow that morphed into 6 days.

God's word that we have today is true and is truth. If God is capable of creating the universe and all life in it then it's a piece of cake for him to make sure the author's wrote what he wanted written and that was preserved to this day without any major fault.

Interpretation of his word is the problem we have today because men refuse to believe what the Bible says and need to interpret it differently in order to make it fit their own preconceived notions.

 

[Queller]

God's word is true? Which one? The original or the copies? If the copies are that far off then we can say we don't know what God's word ever said. It all could be a farce. I mean the originals could have said, God created the earth in 13 billion years and somehow that morphed into 6 days.

Do we have the originals, yes or no? It really is a quite simple question.

Men are fallible. Even men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

God's word that we have today is true and is truth. If God is capable of creating the universe and all life in it then it's a piece of cake for him to make sure the author's wrote what he wanted written and that was preserved to this day without any major fault.

Does the bolded portion mean that you accept that there might be minor faults in the Bible?

Interpretation of his word is the problem we have today because men refuse to believe what the Bible says and need to interpret it differently in order to make it fit their own preconceived notions.

Which is exactly what every person reading the Bible does. You, me, everyone.

The difference is that I don't interpret the Bible in such a way that denies the evidence God left behind in His fingerprints in the world.

 

[dad]

Point is that my bible reads "two days"

‎ וּכְעֵתָ צֵ֙את הַקֵּ֜ץ לְיָמִ֣ים שְׁנַ֗יִם יָצְא֤וּ מֵעָיו֙ עִם־חָלְי֔וֹ וַיָּ֖מָת בְּתַחֲלֻאִ֣ים (2 Chr. 21:19 BHS)
​

However, translators recognize that יום has to be understood in context, and no English bible that I know of reads "two days." I am absolutely sure that yours does not. So again, I ask how does YOUR bible translate this passage? Were the translators of your bible wrong?

Is that Chronicles?

 

[dad]

Because that is what kind of meteorite formed the Chixulub Crater, a large, technically Carbonaceous chondrite meteorite.

Based on what??

" Carbonaceous chondrites are primitive and undifferentiated meteorites that formed in oxygen-rich regions of the early solar system so that most of the metal is not found in its free form but as silicates, oxides, or sulfides."
Meteorite.fr - Classification - Stony Meteorites - Carbonaceous Chondrites

How about the center of the earth?! Why invoke some so called early solar system that never existed?

And you're the one proposing that this had to come from the eruption of the "fountains of the deep".

No. I ask why not? If we had evidence it didn't what would I care?

I was speaking to your scenario of all the impact craters we see on earth happening at the same time and not wiping out all life on earth because of the flood waters.

No no no! The reason was the former state, not water.

Yes, in reality, if all the impact craters we see on earth happened at the same time within the last 4,000 years, life as we know it would not exist.

In other words if they fell in this state! Relax, that doesn't seem to be the case.

You're the one who said it was 3 light years away. I'm going by the scenario you proposed.

Look again, I did not say it was. I said if it were. Since you don't know distances, why not pick that distance as an example?

By you and what you told me about this hypothetical fist-sized supernova.

Maybe it is smaller than that! Maybe bigger. Point is you have no idea. All your models are faith based and assume standard cosmo things.

Because you told me that the supernova was the size of a fist.

Nope. Look again. I asked what if it were. Same as I mention it might be smaller or bigger.

Are you seriously criticizing me for using the information you gave me to address your concerns?

So address the example then of if a SN were fist sized? What about it? Since you do NOT know, we can try that out for size.

 

[dad]

You continue to prove my point. You might want to stop digging.

Your lack of a bible case you think helps you..how?

 

[St_Worm2]

Augustine also wrote:

"Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at the plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation." ~Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.

“Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.” ~Augustine. The City of God, translated by G. G. Walsh and G. Monahan (1952), Book 12, Chapter 11, p. 263. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.​

Benelchi said (post #347 above):

Maybe many in the Church today, like those in the early church before them, recognize that while the Genesis account is true history (and not Allegory), the "days" in Genesis were something very different from the days we know today. Augustine of Hippo (4th century) noted that:​

"What these days were like it is highly difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, let alone say ~BECAUSE~ the first three days of creation passed without any sun; the nature of that light, by what shift back and forth it cause morning and evening and what kind of thing evening and morning were are questions that are far beyond the reach of our perception."

And he was one of many in the first few centuries of the Church who rejected the idea of literal 24 hour days, centuries before questions about Darwinism ever arose. Augustine seems to have taken God's words to Job pretty seriously, maybe it is time for much of the rest of the church to do the same.​

I see nothing in the quote of St. Augustine's that you posited for us above to indicate the "length" of the first three days of Creation, do you?

Here is another quote form Augustine that MIGHT help you to better understand what he thought.

"As early Christian writers note, the six "days" of creation could hardly have been solar days such as we now know, for according to the account in Genesis the sun was not made until the forth "day.""​

Wow, are you really implying that Augustine was stupid?

Here again, there is no indication of elapsed time during the first three days of the Creation, only that they could not have been "solar" days (since "the sun was not made until the forth day"). The days could have been longer than 24 hrs, or they could have been shorter, we simply are not told (however, the Hebrew gives us no indication that the length of the first three days of Creation were different than any of the days that followed).

I do not disagree that St. Augustine had alternative scientific theories concerning the Creation to contend with in his day, but the thought that he was not YEC is a myth.

BTW, please reference your quotes in the future so that we can read them in context.

Thanks!

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[Queller]

Based on what??

" Carbonaceous chondrites are primitive and undifferentiated meteorites that formed in oxygen-rich regions of the early solar system so that most of the metal is not found in its free form but as silicates, oxides, or sulfides."
Meteorite.fr - Classification - Stony Meteorites - Carbonaceous Chondrites

How about the center of the earth?! Why invoke some so called early solar system that never existed?

Because that's what the tests show the meteorite that made the Chicxulub impactor was composed of. Therefore regardless of the origin of the impactor's origin, we should be able to find it.

No. I ask why not? If we had evidence it didn't what would I care?

That's what I'm addressing. Why not an impactor from inside the earth?

No no no! The reason was the former state, not water.

Did the impactor land in the water or not? If it did then the former state of the water is what is under discussion.

In other words if they fell in this state! Relax, that doesn't seem to be the case.

On what do you base the claim that the former state of falling was different?

Look again, I did not say it was. I said if it were. Since you don't know distances, why not pick that distance as an example?

I did. I picked that distance and size of supernova precisely because you suggested it.

A fist sized supernova 3 light years away would be undetectable.

Maybe it is smaller than that! Maybe bigger. Point is you have no idea. All your models are faith based and assume standard cosmo things.

You suggested the size and distance. I'm simply going by the parameters you gave. Proxima Centauri is only 4.24 light years away. That means the light from it left 4.24 light years ago. In other words it left there sometime in November, 2012. Was that time period not in the present state?

Light from a fist-sized supernova 3 light years away left that area February, 2014. Was February, 2014 not within the present state?

Nope. Look again. I asked what if it were. Same as I mention it might be smaller or bigger.

And that is exactly what addressed; a fist-sized supernova three light years away would be undetectable.

So address the example then of if a SN were fist sized?

I did address this, it would be undetectable.

What about it? Since you do NOT know, we can try that out for size.

But I do know. Light in the present state left a fist-sized supernova three light years away in the present state. That light traveled through space in the present state. It arrived here 3 years later in the present state but was undetectable due to the original amount of light available.

 

[Queller]

Your lack of a bible case you think helps you..how?

That shovel you're digging with must be getting pretty hot right now.

 

[benelchi]

Augustine also wrote:

"Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at the plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation." ~Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.

“Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.” ~Augustine. The City of God, translated by G. G. Walsh and G. Monahan (1952), Book 12, Chapter 11, p. 263. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.​

Benelchi said (post #347 above):

Maybe many in the Church today, like those in the early church before them, recognize that while the Genesis account is true history (and not Allegory), the "days" in Genesis were something very different from the days we know today. Augustine of Hippo (4th century) noted that:​

"What these days were like it is highly difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, let alone say ~BECAUSE~ the first three days of creation passed without any sun; the nature of that light, by what shift back and forth it cause morning and evening and what kind of thing evening and morning were are questions that are far beyond the reach of our perception."

And he was one of many in the first few centuries of the Church who rejected the idea of literal 24 hour days, centuries before questions about Darwinism ever arose. Augustine seems to have taken God's words to Job pretty seriously, maybe it is time for much of the rest of the church to do the same.​

I see nothing in the quote of St. Augustine's that you posited for us above to indicate the "length" of the first three days of Creation, do you?



Here again, there is no indication of elapsed time during the first three days of the Creation, only that they could not have been "solar" days (since "the sun was not made until the forth day"). The days could have been longer than 24 hrs, or they could have been shorter, we simply are not told (however, the Hebrew gives us no indication that the length of the first three days of Creation were different than any of the days that followed).

I do not disagree that St. Augustine had alternative scientific theories concerning the Creation to contend with in his day, but the thought that he was not YEC is a myth.

BTW, please reference your quotes in the future so that we can read them in context.

Thanks!

Yours in Christ,
David

Actually it is pretty clear if you read Augustin that he rejected a literal 24 hour day. He actually believe that God created everything instantaneously and not over the course of 6 days. Other early church fathers believe that creation took 6,000 years i.e. appealing to the idea that 1000 years was like a day to God. They followed this interpretation because Adam didn't die in the day that he ate the fruit, but he did die within 1000 years. The point is that many of those who lived long ago, and understood the language and culture, rejected the idea that the days of Genesis 1 were literal 24 hour days, to insist that is the only way these days can be understood goes far, far, beyond the evidence.

Additionally your claim "the Hebrew gives us no indication that the length of the first three days of Creation were different than any of the days that followed" is simply untrue. In Genesis 1, the first 5 days lack the article which is included on day 6 in the construct and day 7 in the absolute. Day one is a cardinal, but days 2-7 are ordinals. Most English translations do a good job of "sanitizing" the text, the NASB is one of the few that allows the anomalies of the Hebrew text to be seen in their English translation. While these anomalies are hidden from view in most other English translations, they still do exist in the Hebrew text.

 

[benelchi]

Is that Chronicles?

Yes

 

[dad]

Because that's what the tests show the meteorite that made the Chicxulub impactor was composed of. Therefore regardless of the origin of the impactor's origin, we should be able to find it.

If the stuff was from below, and either was not a big chunky 'meteor' -- or if some of what erupted went into space and away from earth, your scenario would have no merit. Even Walt Brown used regular physics and claimed whatever shot up in some cases would have gotten free of earth. Heck with the former state, I could do it one hand tied behind my back!

Did the impactor land in the water or not? If it did then the former state of the water is what is under discussion.

See above, maybe it ended up on mars or someplace. So remember if they find remains of 'organic life' in the solar it came from earth!

On what do you base the claim that the former state of falling was different?

? Falling? Well maybe it kept going! Or maybe if it was water and stuff from deep deep deep below the earth, some of the fragments remains, and you dun thought they were remains of a meteor from space! or...etc etc.

I did. I picked that distance and size of supernova precisely because you suggested it.

Great...so what is your point about a small object a few light years away then?

A fist sized supernova 3 light years away would be undetectable.

Ah..OK, a point. What support can you give for that claim, before I proceed further on a demolition derby? I am not saying you are wrong, I just like to check your facts before assuming they are correct. Let's see the goods.

You suggested the size and distance. I'm simply going by the parameters you gave. Proxima Centauri is only 4.24 light years away. That means the light from it left 4.24 light years ago. In other words it left there sometime in November, 2012. Was that time period not in the present state?

NO!!!!!!! It does not mean any such thing. I could mean the star was about 25 trillion miles away though. The year thing is a time measure from earth...OUR time. How long light takes to move HERE.

Light from a fist-sized supernova 3 light years away left that area February, 2014. Was February, 2014 not within the present state?

As I suspected. Much ado about nothing! You are hung up on believing time is the same 4 light years away. Prove it.

And that is exactly what addressed; a fist-sized supernova three light years away would be undetectable.

Great we wait for you to show us why, I then can revise things as needed. Reasons?

I did address this, it would be undetectable.

Why?

But I do know. Light in the present state left a fist-sized supernova three light years away in the present state. That light traveled through space in the present state. It arrived here 3 years later in the present state but was undetectable due to the original amount of light available.

It 'was' undetectable?? WHY? Let's see what you got.

 

[dad]

That shovel you're digging with must be getting pretty hot right now.

You have a bible case that makes mine invalid? Good luck with that.