The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: Maxiest on January 20, 2012, 07:50:07 AM
-
I'd say about 4.5 billion years.
Depends if you believe in the bible I guess.
Biblical age is about 6000 Years. Those who don't believe in the bible say its about 4.5-4.6 billion years old. Either way, a 100 years of data is minuscule no matter which of those you believe.
-
Depends if you believe in the bible I guess.
Biblical age is about 6000 Years. Those who don't believe in the bible say its about 4.5-4.6 billion years old. Either way, a 100 years of data is minuscule no matter which of those you believe.
Where in the bible does it say the Earth is 6000 years old?
-
Where in the bible does it say the Earth is 6000 years old?
The bible does not explicitly say this, but God gave a clear birth certificate in Genesis. And following genealogies from Adam to Abraham we get an approximate date. ~4000 years. And obviously since the year we are in now is 2012 AD which is since Christ birth (give or take a few years.)
So ~4000+~2000=~6000.
-
Is that determination from the bit about creating everything in 6 days and resting on the 7th? If so, how do you marry that up with the notion that there is no concept of time in Heaven?
If you believe in Genesis, then yes.
I think more likely than not we will not care about time in heaven, if we live eternally then time is of no concern.
Time is mentioned in heaven in Revelations, but who knows if its the same time that we one earth follow.
When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.
Rev 8:1
-
And how do you marry that up with the dinosaur fossil record?
Threadjack; we should probably continue this elsewhere, if desired.
Much of it has to do with the flood, which most scientist don't believe in. If the flood did in fact happen and the earth was filled with water that covered even the highest mountain by 20 feet then obviously the geological fossil records would be misinterpreted by scientists.
-
I just think it does a disservice to the Christian community to continue the ridiculous notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old. It provides ammunition to the anti-Christian DUmbasses. As for the flood messing up fossil records, the Jews have been around for 5000 years. Even if the Earth was 6000 years old, you couldn't explain the transitional phases of prehistoric Dinosauria all within 1000 years and there are no writings where Joshua and the boys came upon a Velociraptor.
-
Much of it has to do with the flood, which most scientist don't believe in. If the flood did in fact happen and the earth was filled with water that covered even the highest mountain by 20 feet then obviously the geological fossil records would be misinterpreted by scientists.
Since the fossils are stratified with the higher forms at the top end (Unless you want to go with 'Mastodons floated better than dinosaurs') there are holes in that you could drive a truck through. Probably better to just stick with "God made it that way all at one time to test our faith when we eventually saw it" if you want to defend Creationism.
-
If you believe in Genesis, then yes.
I think more likely than not we will not care about time in heaven, if we live eternally then time is of no concern.
Time is mentioned in heaven in Revelations, but who knows if its the same time that we one earth follow.
A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
-
I just think it does a disservice to the Christian community to continue the ridiculous notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old. It provides ammunition to the anti-Christian DUmbasses. As for the flood messing up fossil records, the Jews have been around for 5000 years. Even if the Earth was 6000 years old, you couldn't explain the transitional phases of prehistoric Dinosauria all within 1000 years and there are no writings where Joshua and the boys came upon a Velociraptor.
Job 40 and 41, KJV
-
Since the fossils are stratified with the higher forms at the top end (Unless you want to go with 'Mastodons floated better than dinosaurs') there are holes in that you could drive a truck through. Probably better to just stick with "God made it that way all at one time to test our faith when we eventually saw it" if you want to defend Creationism.
Did you ever do a kids' Science experiment where you shoveled different kinds of dirt into a big jar, filled it with water, let it sit a few days, then shook it and let everything settle? Weirdly enough, the dirt settles into layers, and any intruding material settles on various layers, too. Modern geologists discount the effects of the flood because they don't believe it. If it happened exactly as described, you can prove for yourself that the earth would settle much as geology shows it has.
The fact that all evidence is currently interpreted in one way does not prove that way is accurate.
-
Did you ever do a kids' Science experiment where you shoveled different kinds of dirt into a big jar, filled it with water, let it sit a few days, then shook it and let everything settle? Weirdly enough, the dirt settles into layers, and any intruding material settles on various layers, too. Modern geologists discount the effects of the flood because they don't believe it. If it happened exactly as described, you can prove for yourself that the earth would settle much as geology shows it has.
The fact that all evidence is currently interpreted in one way does not prove that way is accurate.
Like globull warming...
-
Did you ever do a kids' Science experiment where you shoveled different kinds of dirt into a big jar, filled it with water, let it sit a few days, then shook it and let everything settle? Weirdly enough, the dirt settles into layers, and any intruding material settles on various layers, too. Modern geologists discount the effects of the flood because they don't believe it. If it happened exactly as described, you can prove for yourself that the earth would settle much as geology shows it has.
The fact that all evidence is currently interpreted in one way does not prove that way is accurate.
Well, it doesn't matter to me what anyone believes about it, as long as they aren't a geologist I'm actually paying, or something like that. Your description is in the "Mastodons floated better" category, and if you're happy with that, I'm okay too.
-
Well, it doesn't matter to me what anyone believes about it, as long as they aren't a geologist I'm actually paying, or something like that. Your description is in the "Mastodons floated better" category, and if you're happy with that, I'm okay too.
As you, I don't really care what someone believes, however the concept that the planet is only 6000 years old is simply ludicrous on its face........dragging that argument into politics does our movement real damage, and invites ridicule.
On the "Mastodons floated better" meme, everyone realizes that in the fossil record we ARE talking about fossilized remains, where the organic material has been replaced with rock........that isn't going to happen in 6000 years, in fact age can be quite accurately determined by the timing of the chemical process that eventually fossilized the bones. All of this can be accomplished without resorting to Carbon-14 dating, which I assume is some of Satan's work as well.
As DAT stated succinctly.......believe what you want......just keep the more bizarre of those unverifiable beliefs out of political discussions......they make us look foolish (and arguably no different from the Global Warming crowd).
doc
-
Job 40 and 41, KJV
Looks like a bit of a fairy tale to me. I don't remember reading about any fire-breathing dinosaurs. Do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old? And if dinosaurs did exist at that time, and that's what it's referring to, why only two entries in the entire Bible?
-
Looks like a bit of a fairy tale to me. I don't remember reading about any fire-breathing dinosaurs. Do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old? And if dinosaurs did exist at that time, and that's what it's referring to, why only two entries in the entire Bible?
I suspect that you're wasting your breath Reb........in fact the Old Testament is an "oral history".......passed down word of mouth by the Jews from generation to generation for 2500 years before it was ever committed to writing, and it's filled with legends and myths......even the Jews who wrote it don't take it literally, and I'll always defer to them on this theological issue.
Why some Christians do take it literally, even to the point of extrapolating theories from the words and omissions has always amazed me.
That said, let's get this thread back on topic, or if desired, I'll split this portion of the discussion off and move it to the Religion forum.........
doc
-
I suspect that you're wasting your breath Reb........in fact the Old Testament is an "oral history".......passed down word of mouth by the Jews from generation to generation for 2500 years before it was ever committed to writing, and it's filled with legends and myths......even the Jews who wrote it don't take it literally, and I'll always defer to them on this theological issue.
Why some Christians do take it literally, even to the point of extrapolating theories from the words and omissions has always amazed me.
That said, let's get this thread back on topic, or if desired, I'll split this portion of the discussion off and move it to the Religion forum.........
doc
Please do,it can be an interesting discussion and a good one to have but it is junking up the DUmpster.
-
Please do,it can be an interesting discussion and a good one to have but it is junking up the DUmpster.
Done
doc
-
Can the rest from Sara be put back into the DUmpster as it is now also the subject of the latest DUmmie FUnnies,so CC may get some additional traffic from that.
Thanks. :)
-
Can the rest from Sara be put back into the DUmpster as it is now also the subject of the latest DUmmie FUnnies,so CC may get some additional traffic from that.
Thanks. :)
The rest of the Sarah thread is in the DUmpster, on the second page.
Apparently TVDOC and I were splitting and moving this at the same time.
-
Looks like a bit of a fairy tale to me. I don't remember reading about any fire-breathing dinosaurs. Do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old? And if dinosaurs did exist at that time, and that's what it's referring to, why only two entries in the entire Bible?
I love history. I have read tons of history books from this century. I don't read much about cats and dogs in the books I have read. I don't think dinosaurs where the "subject" at hand in the bible just like dogs aren't in most the Civil War books I have read.
-
The rest of the Sarah thread is in the DUmpster, on the second page.
Apparently TVDOC and I were splitting and moving this at the same time.
Is THAT what happened.....I thought I lost part of it when I was splitting the thread, then it reappeared.
doc
-
I love history. I have read tons of history books from this century. I don't read much about cats and dogs in the books I have read. I don't think dinosaurs where the "subject" at hand in the bible just like dogs aren't in most the Civil War books I have read.
Good point.
Does the bible mention monkeys, giraffes, alligators, sharks, etc. ? Just because dinosaurs aren't mentioned except in two places does not mean they didn't exist along side humans.
-
Good point.
Does the bible mention monkeys, giraffes, alligators, sharks, etc. ? Just because dinosaurs aren't mentioned except in two places does not mean they didn't exist along side humans.
in those days there were giants on the earth.
-
The geneologies were first chronicled by Archbishop Usher and yes, he took every tittle and jot literally...perhaps more literally than the rabbis would dare. The rabbis don't have these problems, the problem with modern-American theology (read: crap) is they refuse to listen to their elders.
What I've never understood is the unfounded mania to assume these geneologies are the only part of history.
Nevermind "earth sciences" such as fossils or stratification, there are human histories that pre-date the geneologies by millenia.
None of that does disservice to the bible; it's just fact. The bible doesn't pretend to be ALL history, just the history of God interacting with a select group.
-
The bible doesn't pretend to be ALL history, just the history of God interacting with a select group.
but if god supposedly created earth 6000 yrs ago, that would be "all history" not just human history.
-
but if god supposedly created earth 6000 yrs ago, that would be "all history" not just human history.
with the exception of a few nutcase fundamentalists, and a few of those being muslim, no one believes the claim of 6000 yearsago.
-
but if god supposedly created earth 6000 yrs ago, that would be "all history" not just human history.
The bible makes no claim to speak for the peoples of India, China, pre-colonized America etc. Some of their contiguous histories stretch further into the past than the presumed ages of the geneologies.
And as far as the Genesis account goes: the rabbis teach that a key passage is "tohu v' bohu" translated as "without form and void." Their traditions maintain that the earth was in existence but had been reduced from an earlier state of being. This doesn't necessarily mean the earth was a quivering ball of jelly hurtling through space but rather it had suffered a cataclysm that made it uninhabitable until Providence began life anew. The rabbis speculate in the usual marvelous rabbinic manner as to what this prior world may have been but despite their wild ponderings they agree that what is important is that Humanity's chapter of The Great Cosmic Saga begins with the renewal. This is when man is create and this is what man is meant to know. Anything else becomes a distraction.
-
with the exception of a few nutcase fundamentalists, and a few of those being muslim, no one believes the claim of 6000 yearsago.
I am sorry but I disagree. Unless of course you are calling most Christians fundamentalists.
-
I am sorry but I disagree. Unless of course you are calling most Christians fundamentalists.
That statement, in and of itself, is as meaningful as Algore's appeal to scientific consensus.
The claim the geneologies are the only way to assign an age to the earth is ludicrous. Not even the geneologies make that claim. To defend them on those grounds isn't to defend scripture but to defend an interpretation of scripture that is as juvenile as the anti-theistic taunts that Tim Tebow ought not ever lose a football game..
-
Depends if you believe in the bible I guess.
Biblical age is about 6000 Years. Those who don't believe in the bible say its about 4.5-4.6 billion years old. Either way, a 100 years of data is minuscule no matter which of those you believe.
Please look up the type of logic you're using, do you really believe that manipulation is appropriate to spread the Gospel of Christ?
Do you expect to convert or bring forth a revival, under false pretenses?
I am sorry but I disagree. Unless of course you are calling most Christians fundamentalists.
Are you disagreeing on the labeling or implied percentage of belief?
Disregard the gallup or barna surveys on individual beliefs, and look up the official denominational beliefs.
I love history. I have read tons of history books from this century. I don't read much about cats and dogs in the books I have read. I don't think dinosaurs where the "subject" at hand in the bible just like dogs aren't in most the Civil War books I have read.
In light of the first quote... this shift in logic, could pose problematic.
-
Please look up the type of logic you're using, do you really believe that manipulation is appropriate to spread the Gospel of Christ?
Do you expect to convert or bring forth a revival, under false pretenses?
Are you disagreeing on the labeling or implied percentage of belief?
Disregard the gallup or barna surveys on individual beliefs, and look up the official denominational beliefs.
In light of the first quote... this shift in logic, could pose problematic.
I don't plan on converting a single soul as I am not some bible thumping robot. I could care less.
I am stating what I have learned and read over the years. Am I wrong? Possibly... I am no scholar.
You keep speaking of the "spread of gospel." I am here to spread nothing, I chimed in on a comment made in another thread expressing what I "believe" through my limited knowledge.
You taking two quotes about two different statements making two different points trying to prove my quotes "problematic" is problematic in itself.
-
I don't plan on converting a single soul as I am not some bible thumping robot.[
Then why the inexplicable and observably, factually indefensible assertion that the bible puts the earth's age at ~6,000 years?
Presumably, the geneologies show only 6,000 years so if the earth is more than 6,000 years then the geneologies are incorrect and if the geneologies are incorrect then all of scripture is in jeopardy of being indicted as erroneous. If the bible is erroneous then presumably it can be dismissed without regard.
At least that's how I've come to understand the need to defend this silliness.
-
Then why the inexplicable and observably, factually indefensible assertion that the bible puts the earth's age at ~6,000 years?
Presumably, the geneologies show only 6,000 years so if the earth is more than 6,000 years then the geneologies are incorrect and if the geneologies are incorrect then all of scripture is in jeopardy of being indicted as erroneous. If the bible is erroneous then presumably it can be dismissed without regard.
At least that's how I've come to understand the need to defend this silliness.
One important point on the age of the world is the time Adam and Eve spent in the Garden. No one has any idea if that was a few days or a million years. All that is known is that nothing on Earth died until after they ate of the forbidden fruit. There is an age given for Adam, but it makes no sense for a man to count his age if he will never die. We don't even know that there were seasons marking years in the Garden, so why would Adam start counting his years before he was evicted?
On the other hand, science has proven that all humans on this earth arose from one specific female about 13,000 years ago.
When and if humans ever learn enough, it will be discovered that Genesis is absolutely correct. God was the only eyewitness, and He told us what He did.
-
...
On the other hand, science has proven that all humans on this earth arose from one specific female about 13,000 years ago.
...
That is somewhat difficult to believe given that there are fossilised bones that are arguably human which are 20K + years old being found in places here. Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains) but you can follow the sources cited in the article if wiki is disregarded as a direct source.
-
I am sorry but I disagree. Unless of course you are calling most Christians fundamentalists.
lost your point.
Are you saying you dissagree with my statement that only a few Christians believe the earth is only 600o years old, or that only a few are fundies, or that only a few fundamentalists (including muslims) believe it?
Not being a dick, but I want to make sure I understand your statement before I reply to it.
-
On the other hand, science has proven that all humans on this earth arose from one specific female about 13,000 years ago.
Asians emigrated to the Americas at least 20,000 years ago, maybe as long ago as 30,000.
This would, of course, be AFTER humanity left Africa and the Fertile Crescent, moved into and past the Indian sub-continent, into Asia, built-up and moved North.
When and if humans ever learn enough, it will be discovered that Genesis is absolutely correct. God was the only eyewitness, and He told us what He did.
Absolutely correct in what regard? As a descriptor of the poverty of the human condition? Absolutely.
As a stenographic record of a minute-by-minute account of talking reptiles taunting two lonely humans? Maybe not so much.
-
Asians emigrated to the Americas at least 20,000 years ago, maybe as long ago as 30,000.
This would, of course, be AFTER humanity left Africa and the Fertile Crescent, moved into and past the Indian sub-continent, into Asia, built-up and moved North.
Absolutely correct in what regard? As a descriptor of the poverty of the human condition? Absolutely.
As a stenographic record of a minute-by-minute account of talking reptiles taunting two lonely humans? Maybe not so much.
Absolutely correct in all details. As I am sure the Flood actually happened, I don't believe our dating systems are correct. It takes too much faith in human intelligence for me to believe that humans are right and God's word wrong. At some point, humans will know enough to be able to go back to Genesis and realize that every detail is correct.
-
lost your point.
Are you saying you dissagree with my statement that only a few Christians believe the earth is only 600o years old, or that only a few are fundies, or that only a few fundamentalists (including muslims) believe it?
Not being a dick, but I want to make sure I understand your statement before I reply to it.
Disagreeing with your statement that only a few Christians believe the earth is ~6000 years old. And your calling anyone that believes this to be a fundamentalist. So you are saying that all Christians are fundamentalist?
-
So you are saying that all Christians are fundamentalist?
This is either:
A) a poorly conveyed thought or
B) a tautological statement
Not everyone who professes being a Christian agrees with the idea the earth is only 6,000 years old and near as I can tell the Bible makes no such demands, not even abstractly.
-
This is either:
A) a poorly conveyed thought or
B) a tautological statement
Not everyone who professes being a Christian agrees with the idea the earth is only 6,000 years old and near as I can tell the Bible makes no such demands, not even abstractly.
I am saying a majority of Christians I know believe in a young earth and are not fundamentalist.