RE: the earth

RE: the earth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

waitingforreturn -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 1:43:13 PM)
I recommend James Ushers Annals of the World. It is outstanding. Amazon.com has it for a very good price. By going by the bible and the number of years given in it for happenings (like the number of years a king ruled,etc), he came up with the creation as being 4004 BC. So yeah, the world is about 6000 years old. Others since Usher verified his work and came to the same year of creation.

cow451 -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 2:47:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: waitingforreturn I recommend James Ushers Annals of the World. It is outstanding. Amazon.com has it for a very good price. By going by the bible and the number of years given in it for happenings (like the number of years a king ruled,etc), he came up with the creation as being 4004 BC. So yeah, the world is about 6000 years old. Others since Usher verified his work and came to the same year of creation. 16th century religion is one thing, 16th century science is another.

drmark -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 4:25:12 PM)
quote: When i mentioned in another thread that the belief in a 6000 year old earth does not affect the Bible's salvation message and your words were "are you sure about that" and posted an article to rebut me so either you do believe that the age is necessary to the salvation message or it isn't but forgive me if i call you on it when you try to have it both ways. Well I posted a response earlier which may have inadvertently been lost in the flurry of postings. Let me succintly state that I see a big difference in the "message" of Biblical salvation and the "mechanism" of salvation. One's interpretation of Genesis has great potential for influencing one's understanding of the Scriptural basis of Christian theology. This does not equate necessarily to the same degree of influence on a personal understanding of what it means to be saved. God's grace certainly trumps man's feeble hermeneutics!

unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 4:42:56 PM)
ORIGINAL:cow451 quote: 16th century religion is one thing, 16th century science is another. Usher studied God's word to determine the age of the earth. Science is constantly changing and is ofter wrong. God's word is unchanging and is never wrong. Scientists guess at the age of the earth. God knows the age of the earth.

cow451 -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 4:46:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:cow451 quote: 16th century religion is one thing, 16th century science is another. Usher studied God's word to determine the age of the earth. Science is constantly changing and is ofter wrong. God's word is unchanging and is never wrong. Scientists guess at the age of the earth. God knows the age of the earth. If science never changed, it would be called the Dark Ages.

cow451 -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 4:48:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark God's grace certainly trumps man's feeble hermeneutics! It certainly does.

ianz -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 4:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:cow451 quote: 16th century religion is one thing, 16th century science is another. Usher studied God's word to determine the age of the earth. Science is constantly changing and is ofter wrong. God's word is unchanging and is never wrong. Something I've never quite understood - if God's word is unchanging and never wrong, why are there so many different versions of the Bible? Regards, Ian

unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 5:13:15 PM)
ORIGINAL:cow451 quote: If science never changed, it would be called the Dark Ages. If science never changed we could build pyramids today like the ancients did. The important thing though is that God’s word is never wrong. You support my assertion that what one chooses to believe about the age of the earth depends on the authority they accept.

essentialsaltes -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 5:18:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey Scientists guess at the age of the earth. Surely not even you believe that scientists 'guess' about the age of the earth. Multiple radiometric methods provide consistent results.

cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 5:22:07 PM)
Greetings unclemonkey? I guess some understand that there is science that was, indeed, lost to the generations by the conquerers that destoyed the conquered nations libraries. As a side note, there may have been some writings at history about the days of Joseph the prophet that were lost when the Romans burned the Egyptian library. Science does not say that is unyielding to changes, science is limited in scope and only seeks to describe things by hypothesis and formulating educated guesses based on evidence. It is not faith, necessarily, to deny facts that one can perceive with ones own eyes. It is written that Gods invisible qualities where known by what was made so that people are without excuse to know about what some of those qualities are. For the natural things speak of that which is invisible. When science says bonds and forces; We concur by saying it is written that the universe is kept together by the power and invisible Force of The Word of The Living God. quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:cow451 quote: If science never changed, it would be called the Dark Ages. If science never changed we could build pyramids today like the ancients did. The important thing though is that God’s word is never wrong. You support my assertion that what one chooses to believe about the age of the earth depends on the authority they accept.

unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 5:23:52 PM)
ORIGINAL:ianz quote: Something I've never quite understood - if God's word is unchanging and never wrong, why are there so many different versions of the Bible? Because of satanic influence. You need to ask that questoin in the Bible forum ranther than here though.

ianz -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 5:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:ianz quote: Something I've never quite understood - if God's word is unchanging and never wrong, why are there so many different versions of the Bible? Because of satanic influence. You need to ask that questoin in the Bible forum ranther than here though. Who judges what requires change or re-interpretation due to satanic influence? Regards, Ian

cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 5:54:04 PM)
Greetings ianz! Please understand that there are many languages given to peoples on the earth. As you are aware, a translation requires further thoughtful processes that include knowledge of the original language and grammatics of the time in which they are written. We do not pursue these things without a Good Strongs Concordance to help aid Us in our understandings of the text. We do not want to be ignorant of anything that God is saying, so we endeavor to study very closely in these regards. Thank You for your time and effort in asking Us on this subject. quote: ORIGINAL: ianz quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:ianz quote: Something I've never quite understood - if God's word is unchanging and never wrong, why are there so many different versions of the Bible? Because of satanic influence. You need to ask that questoin in the Bible forum ranther than here though. Who judges what requires change or re-interpretation due to satanic influence? Regards, Ian

RCC -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 7:14:09 PM)
I'd like to become a YEC. So far as I can see from reading this thread, there are four steps I need to take: (1) accept that the Bible is inerrant; (2) accept an interpretation of the Bible as describing historical events (as opposed to a symbolic/mythological/allegorical interpretation); (3) accept an interpretation of Genesis 1-2 as describing historical events during a one-week period, and (4) disregard any empirical evidence or observations that seem to support a billions-year-old earth or evolution. Have I got it right? It seems a lot easier than being an evolutionist, since "disregarding" is, in general, much easier than "studying."

cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 7:36:24 PM)
Greetings RCC! LOL!!! Some of Us still know that it is written: study to show yourself approved. This precept does not encourage any ignorant diregarding of factual exposition as proposed by the mathematical and theoretical applications of science whose scope is limited to the finding of models and representations regarding natural processes and phenomenon. It is written: if you desire understanding more than rubies and love wisdom more than choice gold, then you are a person that Solomon would honor. quote: ORIGINAL: RCC I'd like to become a YEC. So far as I can see from reading this thread, there are four steps I need to take: (1) accept that the Bible is inerrant; (2) accept an interpretation of the Bible as describing historical events (as opposed to a symbolic/mythological/allegorical interpretation); (3) accept an interpretation of Genesis 1-2 as describing historical events during a one-week period, and (4) disregard any empirical evidence or observations that seem to support a billions-year-old earth or evolution. Have I got it right? It seems a lot easier than being an evolutionist, since "disregarding" is, in general, much easier than "studying."

unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 7:51:05 PM)
original:ianz quote: Who judges what requires change or re-interpretation due to satanic influence? Ask these questions in the Bible forum.

RCC -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 7:51:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: prophetica Greetings RCC! LOL!!! Some of Us "Us" with a capital U? If you're one of the Holy Trinity, I'm in trouble. quote: still know that it is written: study to show yourself approved. This precept does not encourage any ignorant diregarding of factual exposition as proposed by the mathematical and theoretical applications of science whose scope is limited to the finding of models and representations regarding natural processes and phenomenon. It is written: if you desire understanding more than rubies and love wisdom more than choice gold, then you are a person that Solomon would honor. OK, but I'm not sure why I should pay any attention whatsoever to the empirical evidence, if I believe that God says that the earth and its inhabitants were created in six days and that settles it. As Kurt Wise (the YEC geologist who studied with Stephen Jay Gould) put it, "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." So the evidence is irrelevant.

drmark -> RE: the earth (1/7/2008 11:33:11 PM)
quote: disregard any empirical evidence or observations that seem to support a billions-year-old earth or evolution. Oh, that's a marvelous misrepresentation of YEC precepts. The fact stands, RCC, that there is NO empirical evidence for zillions of years of evolution because no one but God could have been around to observe it. And His Eyewitness account claims otherwise, as you carefully pointed out in the first three steps. So let me reword step #4 correctly: interpret and draw conclusions from indirect natural evidence through a Scriptural understanding of origins instead of the latest fad of fallible humanists engaged in promoting their religion of scientism.

cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 1:20:02 AM)
Greetings RCC! The capital U is for those of The Body of Christ who are old earth believers. It is written, instead, that God's invisible qualities are made apparent and known through what was made. Therefore, there is reason to believe that empirical evidence is to be accepted on this basis and not rejected and ignored. Such things as what you have proposed as your belief led to the stiffling of further scientific study of the nature of the great creation that God Almighty set in order and proactively rules in governance and Sovereingty over. Great thinkers of the past were many times persecuted by well meaning people who were ignorant of the fact that men can seek understanding while maintaining Sound Doctrine in The Faith of Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior. It is not in keeping with the ordering of creation as written in The Testimony of Moses by prophecy to assume that God stood on earth with the sun that was not yet created revolving around Him while creating the vast array of His Great Works that we see evident in what was made and therfore accounted for a day in this manner. How humanistic is this belief instead? How egocentric and megalomaniacal of some to believe in this manner maybe. Our focus is to be on God, not on our present status as humans that are from earth. We are to be a new creation born into the Kingdom of God unto producing Good fruits that will last in keeping with the righteousness that comes by faith. It is written that the one who is from earth speaks as one from earth and that The One from above is above all and speaks as to the things that He sees The Father doing and saying. quote: ORIGINAL: RCC quote: ORIGINAL: prophetica Greetings RCC! LOL!!! Some of Us "Us" with a capital U? If you're one of the Holy Trinity, I'm in trouble. quote: still know that it is written: study to show yourself approved. This precept does not encourage any ignorant diregarding of factual exposition as proposed by the mathematical and theoretical applications of science whose scope is limited to the finding of models and representations regarding natural processes and phenomenon. It is written: if you desire understanding more than rubies and love wisdom more than choice gold, then you are a person that Solomon would honor. OK, but I'm not sure why I should pay any attention whatsoever to the empirical evidence, if I believe that God says that the earth and its inhabitants were created in six days and that settles it. As Kurt Wise (the YEC geologist who studied with Stephen Jay Gould) put it, "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." So the evidence is irrelevant.

cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 1:37:05 AM)
Greetings drmark! Could I ask you why you think that God stood on earth with the sun where the earth revolves around which He did not create yet and decided to account for time in this earthly humanistic manner? I believe that Genesis is a prophecy about the past events that happened when God created the universe which does not mean that He no longer does anything active in His kIngdom anymore. It is written: My Father is always working, even to this very day. We just arrived on earth and He worked His greatest miracle of salvation in us who believe Him by faith. Therefore, we know that God has continued to reveal Himself to people even our own time. quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: disregard any empirical evidence or observations that seem to support a billions-year-old earth or evolution. Oh, that's a marvelous misrepresentation of YEC precepts. The fact stands, RCC, that there is NO empirical evidence for zillions of years of evolution because no one but God could have been around to observe it. And His Eyewitness account claims otherwise, as you carefully pointed out in the first three steps. So let me reword step #4 correctly: interpret and draw conclusions from indirect natural evidence through a Scriptural understanding of origins instead of the latest fad of fallible humanists engaged in promoting their religion of scientism.

essentialsaltes -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 9:55:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark The fact stands, RCC, that there is NO empirical evidence for zillions of years of evolution because no one but God could have been around to observe it. Empirical refers to data based on experiment. The data relating to radiometric dating of the earth is certainly empirical. Conversely, Biblical chronology is decidedly not empirical.

drmark -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 1:48:48 PM)
quote: Empirical refers to data based on experiment. The data relating to radiometric dating of the earth is certainly empirical. We obviously have an entirely different understanding of the word "empirical. From dictionary.com it means "depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine." Synonyms include "practical, firsthand, pragmatic". Thus, only the universe's Creator has data based on firsthand experience or observation alone and He has condescended to share His empirical data with us in Holy Scripture. quote: Conversely, Biblical chronology is decidedly not empirical. Radiometric dating of the earth is based on multiple assumptions, presuppositions and indirect conclusions. This technology is definitely NOT based on firsthand observation of "zillions of years of evolution". This stands in stark contrast to the historical account of Biblical chronology recorded by the Only Eyewitness, through emanuensis, without any reliance on theory or scientific methodology. Only God could have observed and experienced the empirical evidence of His own Creation!

drmark -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 2:40:22 PM)
quote: Could I ask you why you think that God stood on earth with the sun which He did not create yet revolving around Him and decided to account for time in this earthly humanistic manner? Sorry prophetica, but your premises are faulty. Creator God was not standing anywhere during creation as He is a Spirit Being and standing requires a physical body. The sun (nor anything else) could not exist until it was created. The sun does not revolve around the earth and the duration of a day is based on the rotation of the earth on its axis. Now that we have all that straight, let me try to answer what I think is your real question. It seems most likely to me that God inspired Moses to record the specific days of creation with the qualifying terms "evening and morning the first-sixth day" so there would be no confusion from anyone reading the text in its proper interpretation as to the details of Genesis 1. I see no better way for Moses to write the historical account so that the original audience as well as people yet to come would clearly understand the Divine timetable of the creation week. I'm certainly not confused - are you? quote: I believe that Genesis is a prophecy about the past events that happened when God created the universe which does not mean that He no longer does anything active in His kIngdom anymore. Well, I believe that Genesis is the historical narrative account of the record of the "Chosen People" from the beginning of God-created time through the life of Joseph, son of Jacob. No Spirit-filled Christian would claim that God "no longer does anything active in His Kingdom anymore"! So what we believe about the literary genre of Genesis is irrelevant to your statement. quote: Therefore, we know that God has continued to reveal Himself to people even our own time. This is obviously true in a limited way as Believers seek God's will and allow Him to guide and direct their individual lives for His glory. However, there is no continuing special revelation as represented by Biblical prophecy through which God speaks directly to all people. The canon of Scripture is closed.

cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 2:49:19 PM)
Greetings drmark! Where is it written in Genesis that God Created the darkness? It is an assumed belief, though upon the creation of light that darkness was created and is then separated from it. I believe that because the light is separated from the darkness at the first Work of God in creation, that this is how we are to determine what a 'day' is. It is darkness separated from light to me. This is indicative of any indistinct period or epoch of 'time' as we would account for it. Let me see some of your thoughts on the matter, please. quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Could I ask you why you think that God stood on earth with the sun which He did not create yet revolving around Him and decided to account for time in this earthly humanistic manner? Sorry prophetica, but your premises are faulty. Creator God was not standing anywhere during creation as He is a Spirit Being and standing requires a physical body. The sun (nor anything else) could not exist until it was created. The sun does not revolve around the earth and the duration of a day is based on the rotation of the earth on its axis. Now that we have all that straight, let me try to answer what I think is your real question. It seems most likely to me that God inspired Moses to record the specific days of creation with the qualifying terms "evening and morning the first-sixth day" so there would be no confusion from anyone reading the text in its proper interpretation as to the details of Genesis 1. I see no better way for Moses to write the historical account so that the original audience as well as people yet to come would clearly understand the Divine timetable of the creation week. I'm certainly not confused - are you? quote: I believe that Genesis is a prophecy about the past events that happened when God created the universe which does not mean that He no longer does anything active in His kIngdom anymore. Well, I believe that Genesis is the historical narrative account of the record of the "Chosen People" from the beginning of God-created time through the life of Joseph, son of Jacob. No Spirit-filled Christian would claim that God "no longer does anything active in His Kingdom anymore"! So what we believe about the literary genre of Genesis is irrelevant to your statement. quote: Therefore, we know that God has continued to reveal Himself to people even our own time. This is obviously true in a limited way as Believers seek God's will and allow Him to guide and direct their individual lives for His glory. However, there is no continuing special revelation as represented by Biblical prophecy through which God speaks directly to all people. The canon of Scripture is closed.

cow451 -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 3:41:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Empirical refers to data based on experiment. The data relating to radiometric dating of the earth is certainly empirical. We obviously have an entirely different understanding of the word "empirical. From dictionary.com it means "depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine." Synonyms include "practical, firsthand, pragmatic". Thus, only the universe's Creator has data based on firsthand experience or observation alone and He has condescended to share His empirical data with us in Holy Scripture. quote: Conversely, Biblical chronology is decidedly not empirical. Radiometric dating of the earth is based on multiple assumptions, presuppositions and indirect conclusions. This technology is definitely NOT based on firsthand observation of "zillions of years of evolution". This stands in stark contrast to the historical account of Biblical chronology recorded by the Only Eyewitness, through emanuensis, without any reliance on theory or scientific methodology. Only God could have observed and experienced the empirical evidence of His own Creation! doc, do you mean amanuensis? By dictation. A secretary is not an eyewitness.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI