|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: the earth - 1/17/2008 5:33:52 PM
|
|
|
.....
Posts: 1351
Status: offline
|
Where do these genealogies put the YEC concept of the age of the earth when one could estimate the rest of the lifespans as recorded to not be more than 120 years, or so, in accordance with the Word that God spoke concerning how long His Spirit would contend with mankind: Longest length of peoples lives set by God. Therefore, in the restimating of the eckoning of time given by Scripture we have:
Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.
So: 14 generations X approximately 80 years each + 14 generations X approximately 80 years each + 14 generations X approximately 80 years each = approximately 3360 years. These are generations after the flood, not including the accounting for generations before Abraham before the flood.
So: In Luke we have the rest of the genealogy. There are 21 more generations; each having longer periods of life span. 21 more generations with 9 of these generations of longer life spans. 12 generations X approximately 100 years + 9 generations X approximately 800 years = approximately 8400 years.
Therefore, a rough estimate of the time accounted for after Adam was created is: approximately 3360 years from Abraham to Christ + 8400 years before Abraham + 2004 after Christ = approximately 17,781 years since Adam was created.
This does not include the time period in which the events of creation occurred; and, therefore, does not tell us how old the earth is necessarily.
We know, though, that it is written: Not to devote ourselves to endless genealogies which promote controversy.
As to the reckoning of time, we also could notice that it is relative to where a person is located upon the earth that the period of time known as a 'day' would be experienced. Therefore, it is established that any period of time, even when one is standing on the earth, could be experienced as a 'day'. For instance, the length of a day experienced at the north pole during differing tilts of the earths axis toward or away from the sun. We also understand that there exists a phenomenon known as 'the northern lights'.
< Message edited by prophetica -- 1/18/2008 2:36:00 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/17/2008 10:19:40 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3063
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
This does not include the time period in which the events of creation occurred; and, therefore, does not tell us how old the earth is necessarily. How can someone perform all these amazing calculations to arrive at "approximately " 17,781 years since Adam's creation and yet not know "necessarily" how long six days of creation lasted? I am speechless (and that's pretty rare for me!).
quote:
As to the reckoning of time, we also could notice that it is relative to where a person is located upon the earth that the period of time known as a 'day' would be experienced. Therefore, it is established that any period of time, even when one is standing on the earth, could be experienced as a 'day'. Say what? The period of time known as a "day" was clearly defined by God as morning and evening. Regardless of one's latitudinal position, a day lasts 24 hours. At the summer and winter solstices the length of evening is 24 hours at one pole and the length of morning is 24 hours at the opposite pole. You've established nothing but your inability to understand planetary rotation.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/18/2008 2:28:50 AM
|
|
|
.....
Posts: 1351
Status: offline
|
Greeting drmark! I notice that it doesn't add up to 10000 years either, though.
LOL!!! 24 hours of darkness still does not equal any 'day'.
One may notice, also, that the word 'yowm' stems from the root word for 'hot' and that God calls light 'day'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
This does not include the time period in which the events of creation occurred; and, therefore, does not tell us how old the earth is necessarily. How can someone perform all these amazing calculations to arrive at "approximately " 17,781 years since Adam's creation and yet not know "necessarily" how long six days of creation lasted? I am speechless (and that's pretty rare for me!).
quote:
As to the reckoning of time, we also could notice that it is relative to where a person is located upon the earth that the period of time known as a 'day' would be experienced. Therefore, it is established that any period of time, even when one is standing on the earth, could be experienced as a 'day'. Say what? The period of time known as a "day" was clearly defined by God as morning and evening. Regardless of one's latitudinal position, a day lasts 24 hours. At the summer and winter solstices the length of evening is 24 hours at one pole and the length of morning is 24 hours at the opposite pole. You've established nothing but your inability to understand planetary rotation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/18/2008 11:10:24 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3063
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
LOL!!! 24 hours of darkness still does not equal any 'day'. Oh but it does, prophetica! Try standing at the North Pole at midnight on Dec 21 and see if Dec 22 doesn't arrive in 24 hours. I look forward to the report of your experiment at year's end.
P.S., don't forget your flashlight!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/19/2008 12:29:59 AM
|
|
|
Okami
Posts: 1024
Joined: 9/26/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: prophetica
..stuff...
Mathew does specifically say "generations" , but only from Abraham on up.
The contention for extra time comes from genealogies prior.
The other genealogy in Luke simply says "soandso of soandso", and being as it was targetting greeks, who commonly understood skipping generations in genealogies, you can't assume that the names prior to Abraham were generational rather than ancestral.
I assume the Timothy reference comes from the same arguments happening back then as well.
_____________________________
My ancestors were humans. Sorry to hear about yours.
Bible answer men the way it should be done.
No shows focused on their books, their guests books, nor religion bashing. Just calls and answers.
http://www.csnradio.com/tema
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 2/1/2008 6:57:59 PM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 86
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Doctors frequently make inferences about events that no one has observed directly (e.g., etiology of a patient’s illness, events at the molecular level). This really doesn't make sense, RCC. Obviously every patient is a unique individual, but I assure you that careful observation using scientific methodology has proven beyond a reasonable doubt (a seemingly firmest conclusion) that when someone has a sore throat, fever of 102, pus on tonsils, and a positive Strep culture, that person will benefit from penicillin. There's no "inference" about it!
This makes no sense. "Inference" means the drawing of a conclusion from known or assumed facts or statements. Thus when a doctor observes these symptoms and then concludes on the basis of medical research that penicillin will benefit this patient, he is making an inference.
Even children understand that one can come to reasonable conclusions about unobserved past events based on present evidence. If you came home one day and found a broken window, your home trashed, and your TV and stereo missing, you would not suspect a burglary and call the police about it unless you believed that reasonable inferences could be made about unobserved past events from observations in the present. Detectives can solve crimes without eyewitness testimony.
quote:
On the contrary, there is no scientific experiment, controlled study, or observational method to prove anything firmly conclusive about the origin of the universe other than its cause must have been greater than the resulting effect.
We were not discussing the origin of the universe, we were discussing the age of the earth and the origin of the diversity of life on earth. The history of the earth and the life upon it have left many traces in the present, which can be studied scientifically to draw reasonable conclusions about the past.
quote:
quote:
God, after all, presumably could have created the world to look as if it were billions of years old and as if all organisms were descended from a common ancestor. No, He did not since His Eyewitness account ststes otherwise.
I.e., what you claim is God's eyewitness account.
quote:
quote:
Argue that God, who is presumably always truthful, has said that He created the Earth and all “kinds” of organisms in a literal six-day period. That’s a tough one, and I would like to see some actual arguments, as opposed to mere assertions, for this. This discussion centers on Biblical interpretation and should be posted in The Bible thread. I'd be delighted to meet you there.
This forum deals with scientific questions, and you brought up a theological argument (that God says thus-and-such about the matter) to support a position on the scientific question of the age of the earth. No, you don't get to bring up an argument in this forum and then tell anyone who disputes the argument to go dispute on another forum. So you need to either argue in support of your position (that God has said that he created the earth and its life forms <10,000 years ago) here, or state that you decline to do so.
quote:
It won't be much of a contest with 1800+ years of traditional Christian hermeneutics supporting the YEC position. Of course, that's "according to the vast majority of [Bible scholars] in the relevant fields" which you hold to be the standard of truth for human knowledge.
I didn't say that at all.
_____________________________
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 2/1/2008 10:19:02 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3063
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
This makes no sense. "Inference" means the drawing of a conclusion from known or assumed facts or statements. It also means "guessing, speculating, or surmising". I was considering that definition in the context of evolutionary theory.
quote:
We were not discussing the origin of the universe, we were discussing the age of the earth and the origin of the diversity of life on earth. C'mon, Richard. Someone as bright as you certainly realizes that the earth's age and the origin of its biodiversity is also supported by "no scientific experiment, controlled study, or observational method to prove anything firmly conclusive" about them. Unless you're privy to some billion year old data that no one else knows!
quote:
The history of the earth and the life upon it have left many traces in the present, which can be studied scientifically to draw reasonable conclusions about the past. Yes indeed, my conclusion is that the transcedent, omnipotent, eternal God of Reality created reality about 6000 years ago. The scientific evidence is overwhelming!
quote:
I.e., what you claim is God's eyewitness account. Nope, I'm only repeating what God claims!
quote:
So you need to either argue in support of your position (that God has said that he created the earth and its life forms <10,000 years ago) here, or state that you decline to do so. Okay, we can discuss God's claims here, as long as the mods don't intervene. I'll start with this article on Jesus' interpretation of Scripture related to origins. Let me know when you're ready to discuss a few points.
Jesus, evangelical scholars, and the age of the earth
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 3/19/2008 5:44:18 PM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 86
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So you need to either argue in support of your position (that God has said that he created the earth and its life forms <10,000 years ago) here, or state that you decline to do so. Okay, we can discuss God's claims here, as long as the mods don't intervene. I'll start with this article on Jesus' interpretation of Scripture related to origins. Let me know when you're ready to discuss a few points.
Jesus, evangelical scholars, and the age of the earth
The Jesus-says-so argument depends on three crucial assumptions:
(1) That Jesus actually made the statements, attributed to him by one or another of the Gospels, that are cited in support of creationism and a young earth.
(2) That Jesus had no human limitations on his knowledge, at least where creationism and the age of the earth are concerned.
(3) That Jesus would not have tailored his sayings to the understanding of his contemporaries.
All three are debatable, to say the least. If you want to establish what God supposedly says by means of the Jesus-says-so argument, these assumptions will need to be defended. The article linked above refers to another source that makes the case for (3), but makes no attempt to defend (1) or (2).
_____________________________
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 3/19/2008 6:07:28 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3063
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
(1) That Jesus actually made the statements, attributed to him by one or another of the Gospels, that are cited in support of creationism and a young earth. Do you believe Abraham Lincoln actually delivered the Gettysburg address? "Prove" it!
quote:
(2) That Jesus had no human limitations on his knowledge, at least where creationism and the age of the earth are concerned. Of course He had no "human limitations on His knowledge"! Jesus was the Agent of creation - I think He knows all about the event!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 3/19/2008 6:41:11 PM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 86
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
(1) That Jesus actually made the statements, attributed to him by one or another of the Gospels, that are cited in support of creationism and a young earth. Do you believe Abraham Lincoln actually delivered the Gettysburg address? "Prove" it!
We have numerous primary sources (contemporary documents) attesting that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address. We do not have to rely on the accounts given in one or a very few sources that clearly have a theological agenda, written a generation or more after his death, whose original manuscripts are no longer extant and whose oldest surviving copies postdate the originals by centuries.
quote:
quote:
(2) That Jesus had no human limitations on his knowledge, at least where creationism and the age of the earth are concerned. Of course He had no "human limitations on His knowledge"! Jesus was the Agent of creation - I think He knows all about the event!
How do you know that Jesus was the Agent of creation? How do you know that when He walked the earth He retained the superhuman knowledge that He supposedly possesses as the Agent of Creation?
_____________________________
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 3/20/2008 1:03:34 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3063
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
We have numerous primary sources (contemporary documents) attesting that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address. You've proven nothing but your ability to google, RCC. Have you seen the original notes Mr Lincoln spoke from? In fact, five different drafts of the speech presently exist and none of them appear to match word-for-word. So, by a percentage of concordance, the Bible may be more reliable than the Gettysburg address!
quote:
How do you know that Jesus was the Agent of creation? Because God tells us so in Col 1:16. Your glib statement that "God works smart, not hard" cannot change the eternal truth of creation, RCC!
quote:
How do you know that when He walked the earth He retained the superhuman knowledge that He supposedly possesses as the Agent of Creation? So what is your interpretation of Mark 10:3-9? Transcription error? Allegorical symbolism? Metaphysical nonsense? Why would you believe anything else Jesus is claimed to have stated in the Gospels if He couldn't even get the origin of humans right?!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 5/7/2008 4:37:00 PM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 86
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
We have numerous primary sources (contemporary documents) attesting that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address. You've proven nothing but your ability to google, RCC. Have you seen the original notes Mr Lincoln spoke from? In fact, five different drafts of the speech presently exist and none of them appear to match word-for-word. So, by a percentage of concordance, the Bible may be more reliable than the Gettysburg address!
I asked how you knew that Jesus actually made the statements concerning creation that are attributed to him in the Gospels. Your reply is that we don't know for sure that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address or what he said exactly. Could you explain your logic?
quote:
quote:
How do you know that Jesus was the Agent of creation? Because God tells us so in Col 1:16.
Here we go again. How do you know that Col 1:16 ("For by him were all things created...") is what God says? Because Jesus said so, right?
quote:
quote:
How do you know that when He walked the earth He retained the superhuman knowledge that He supposedly possesses as the Agent of Creation? So what is your interpretation of Mark 10:3-9? Transcription error? Allegorical symbolism? Metaphysical nonsense? Why would you believe anything else Jesus is claimed to have stated in the Gospels if He couldn't even get the origin of humans right?!
You haven't answered my question. How do you know that Jesus was omniscient, at least concerning the origin of the earth and the history of life on earth, while he walked the earth, fully human as we presumably agree?
_____________________________
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 5/8/2008 10:13:27 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 392
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RCC
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
We have numerous primary sources (contemporary documents) attesting that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address. You've proven nothing but your ability to google, RCC. Have you seen the original notes Mr Lincoln spoke from? In fact, five different drafts of the speech presently exist and none of them appear to match word-for-word. So, by a percentage of concordance, the Bible may be more reliable than the Gettysburg address!
I asked how you knew that Jesus actually made the statements concerning creation that are attributed to him in the Gospels. Your reply is that we don't know for sure that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address or what he said exactly. Could you explain your logic?
quote:
quote:
How do you know that Jesus was the Agent of creation? Because God tells us so in Col 1:16.
Here we go again. How do you know that Col 1:16 ("For by him were all things created...") is what God says? Because Jesus said so, right?
quote:
quote:
How do you know that when He walked the earth He retained the superhuman knowledge that He supposedly possesses as the Agent of Creation? So what is your interpretation of Mark 10:3-9? Transcription error? Allegorical symbolism? Metaphysical nonsense? Why would you believe anything else Jesus is claimed to have stated in the Gospels if He couldn't even get the origin of humans right?
You haven't answered my question. How do you know that Jesus was omniscient, at least concerning the origin of the earth and the history of life on earth, while he walked the earth, fully human as we presumably agree?
It's unfortunate that the authority of the Bible has to be defended. Normally our discussions center around how to properly interpret the Bible, rather than whether or not it is reliable. Jesus' words are perfectly reliable because he showed himself as being from God. He did so through the normal means of 1) producing miraculous signs and 2) making prophetic statements that came true. God went a step further by demonstrating that Jesus was the Messiah through fulfilled Old Testament prophesy such as His virgin birth, the blind receiving site, the ministry of John the Baptist, the fact that he was hated without reason, no broken bones (which was a close call), and the fact that he was "pierced". None of which could have been prearranged. And as if that wasn't enough, 2 eye witnesses, a second hand account, and a historian all recorded the life of Christ, and all within the lifetime of the eye witnesses. Let's not discount that as being "only in the Bible". We don't have so generous a historical account of a 30 year period often.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 5/8/2008 10:33:07 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3063
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
It's unfortunate that the authority of the Bible has to be defended. It's more unfortunate that so many people posting here have no basic understanding of essential Christian beliefs! Thanks for your reply in my place, DanJ.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 5/8/2008 10:50:26 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 392
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
It's unfortunate that the authority of the Bible has to be defended. It's more unfortunate that so many people posting here have no basic understanding of essential Christian beliefs! Thanks for your reply in my place, DanJ.
Well, I suppose in a way, they should be our target audience. Anything else is merely recreational and/or sharpening of one another in preparation for work that will endure for eternity.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
