Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No you're getting yuorself confused. If I created it 6k years ago it would look 6k years old. There would be no 4.5 billion years about it.AV1611VET said:Yup --- then we'd all be arguing on here why the Earth looks 6000 years, when in fact, it's 4.5 billion.
We could call it --- Next Thursdayism.
Just so others are aware, AV takes the KJV as more authoritative than the original hebrew and greek manuscripts. This is what is called Bibliolatry and is generally held (apart from among fringe fundamentalists) to be heretical.AV1611VET said:so long as it doesn't conflict the the KJV.
No you're getting yuorself confused. If I created it 6k years ago it would look 6k years old. There would be no 4.5 billion years about it.
But if i created it 4.5 billion years ago it would look 4.5 billions years ago. Do you understand now?
Just so others are aware, AV takes the KJV as more authoritative than the original hebrew and greek manuscripts. This is what is called Bibliolatry and is generally held (apart from among fringe fundamentalists) to be heretical.
Fijan, I'm going to have to ask you to stop with that accusation. In no way, shape, or form do I do that; and I've even challenged others to produce one post where I have made that claim.
Let's dispense with the childishness, okay?
Have you read your own sig? Can you read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? If not, and if there are discrepancies (hint: I'd bet everything I owned there are), then you would in fact be saying that the KJV is more authoritative than the originals, yes?
Absolutely not --- for the same reason I believe the King James Bible to be the authorized version for today, I believe the Hebrew Scriptures to be the authorized version for their day.
Here's the line, in case yo missed it before:
- AD 96 --- completed Scriptures
- AV100 Koine Version
- AV350 Gothic Version
- AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
- AV1389 Wycliffe Version
- AV1530 Tyndale Version
- AV1560 Geneva Bible
- AV1568 Bishops' Bible
- AV1611 King James Version
Fijan, I'm going to have to ask you to stop with that accusation. In no way, shape, or form do I do that; and I've even challenged others to produce one post where I have made that claim.
Let's dispense with the childishness, okay?
If you created it 6000 years ago, and it looked 6000 years old, then it would look 12,000 years old today.
What's the difference --- you embedded 6000 years into it --- yet God can't?
Soooo....
1) The Bible changes over time in that who, where, and when any given version is "authoritative"?
2) English has changed quite a bit since the KJV, what makes that English better than todays?
4) Have you personally ever done anything in translation, or even in transcription? And, what languages can you speak/read?
Over in OT where we started talking about "yom" one day, you mentioned "Why should I bother with the Hebrew when I have the AV?"
If that's not exalting the KJV translation over the original manuscripts and original languages I don't know what is.
Anyway, embedded age is one thing, embedded hsitory is another.
I don't know if embedded history has scriptual origins. As far as I know it's only your construct. You have said that a 6,000 yo earth looks like it is over 4 billion years old. There is physical evidence for a very old earth - meteor craters, radioactive decay, erosion, plate tectonics, miles of sedimentary layers, fossils, etc. Thus by your definition, the earth was not only made to look old 6,000 years ago, but also made to have a 4 billion year history embedded within it.I've never heard of "embedded history" until I came here. I don't know of anyone who believes that.
I'm not sure why God would embed history into something. Does this have Scriptural support?
I don't know if embedded history has scriptual origins. As far as I know it's only your construct.
You have said that a 6,000 yo earth looks like it is over 4 billion years old.
There is physical evidence for a very old earth - meteor craters, radioactive decay, erosion, plate tectonics, miles of sedimentary layers, fossils, etc.
Thus by your definition, the earth was not only made to look old 6,000 years ago...
...but also made to have a 4 billion year history embedded within it.
Scriptures or not, the physical evidence for a 4 billion year old earth is there.
It is precisely this embedded history that leads to that age estimation.
In the fact that we not only see an 'age', but also seeing a history of 4.5 billion years old that matches up around the world.Where does "deception" come in? The earth He created is just as old as it looks. I don't get it. You guys are the ones who are trying to separate apparent age from exact age, not I.
Had God placed Adam and Eve on a 6000-year-old Earth, so as not to supposedly deceive them, then they, in my opinion, wouldn't have been able to survive.
You are.I thought you guys swore I was a YEC???
I have never, never, never, no, never, never, ever said this Earth is 6000 years old (unless it was a typo).
For about the 303rd time:
This earth is 4.5 billion years old (or so).
And your opinion is wrong.Which, in my opinion, can be explained by a global flood.
It is your only recourse.Now you got it!
I disagree with this. Like I said, I never heard of the theory of embedded history.
Nobody said you had. The point is that you not only need to explain that the earth has an age of 4.5 billion years old, but that it also has a history of 4.5 billion years showing, that cannot be explained by a global flood (especially since the traces left by this history expressely contradict a global flood).Well, since it is 4.5 billion years old, I would tend to agree. Radiometric dating, I believe confirms this.
Please tell me what "embedded history" is. I Googled it and Wikipediad it, and found nothing.
Like I said, I'm 52 years old, and despite all the studying and schooling I've had, I've never heard that term used.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?