Yec?

[PhilA]

Hi all,

Could I please ask a very simple question, could someone please point out to me where the Bible mentions the age of the earth?



I'm not wanting this to get into a debate on interpretation, but the YEC view is one based solely on Scripture (I think?) So the age of the earth must surely be mentioned, but I cannot find where.



YEC is not a view I currently hold, but is a view I would like to find more about. I definitely believe that we are created, exactly how, why or when I do not claim to know.

[trueseeker]

Hi all,

Could I please ask a very simple question, could someone please point out to me where the Bible mentions the age of the earth?



I'm not wanting this to get into a debate on interpretation, but the YEC view is one based solely on Scripture (I think?) So the age of the earth must surely be mentioned, but I cannot find where.



YEC is not a view I currently hold, but is a view I would like to find more about. I definitely believe that we are created, exactly how, why or when I do not claim to know.


Phil,

The age Biblically can be calculated by starting with the genelogies in Genesis. Adam had Seth when he was 130 years old, Seth had Enosh at 105 years of age and so on clear through Jacob (Israel). And the Bible tells us how old Jacob was when he moved to Egypt. Then there are a couple verses that fill in between the Genesis genelogies and the reign of Kings. The first in Exodus says something like, the children of Israel left Egypt 430 years to the day from when Jacob came to Egypt. The second verse in Kings, says something like Solomon started building the temple in the fourth year of his reign 480 years after the children of Israel left Egypt. Then you have to add the years each king reigned, like with the genelogies. When you total these up it comes to approximately 3,600 years. At the end of the kings reigns, Babylon takes over. From that time until Jesus came various writings outside scripture seem to show it to be around 400 years. Since Jesus we have the Roman calendar with 2000 years. It is actually not that hard to do (with the exception of the digging up the information on the 400 years between Babylonian exile and Jesus) and kind of a fun project.

If you make a graph you can see who lived into who elses life time. For example Methuselah died the same year as the flood. He lived long enough to know both Adam and Noah. Noah lived long enough to know Abraham and Noah's son Shem lived long enough to know Jacob.

[A Beautiful Truth]

PhilA,

The old earth creationist would bring up the fact that Hebrew genelogies often have gaps, with only the most notable figues beign mentioned.

While the gaps can only give us an estimation of time, this estimation does have boundaries, of course.

The old earth creationist would say that the length of the Genesis days are not 24 hours long (as God's seventh day still continues), and that the genelogies give us a time estimation of when God created Adam and Eve, but not when He created the earth (because the previous days were ages).

Notice also that "the foundations of the earth" is the entire work week and that the foundation of the earth was not laid until man was created. Therefore, laying the foundation of the earth took longer than the "last days" probably will.

But do not be surprised at how vicious this topic is argued. I just had a YEC "brother" who left our church send out a four page letter to members of the congregation accusing my husband and I of being teachers of false doctrines because we are old earth creationists.

[Abigail]

Charleen, with due respect to you, perhaps the brother you speak of saw his letter as more of a rebuttal to points you had been making.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, with due respect to you, perhaps the brother you speak of saw his letter as more of a rebuttal to points you had been making.

Thank you for the respect, I appreciate it.

The thing is, I never made any points publically, and nobody asked privately but a few. I never pushed this issue and most people at church did not even know I was an old earth creationist. The problem arose when my husband became an elder and this man as well, and he kept bringing up the issue that my husband is a compromiser and such. Pastor kept it under control but then Pastor moved and this man stirred the pot again--at this vunerable time without a pastor. It breaks my heart.

I appreciate your point, though.

~Charleen

P.S. great imitation on Jinx's avatar!

[dizzle]

Charleen, Charleen:

I just had a YEC "brother" who left our church send out a four page letter to members of the congregation accusing my husband and I of being teachers of false doctrines because we are old earth creationists.

Are you claimingthis person is not a fellow believer? Second, I seriously consider leaviing my church if they taught OEC in all likelihood. It would not mean they are not brethren, but it would mean that I felt they have caved in to a false doctrine I find very important. And yes of course I think OEC is a false doctrine. So? I think futurism is a false doctrine too. In fact, if we hold our beliefs firmly we believe those that are in opposition are by definition false. I would write a letter probably as well. My church was selling Philips, Craig, and Dean CDs in the bookstore, and I wrote a letter to the head pastor after I got very indifferent responses from the bookstore management. If he had given me indifference as a response, I might well have left that church. Your smear on your "brother" is not very "sisterly" of you.

I have struggles right now with my church as they are dispensational, a view I find to be very seriously in error and leading the church astray. I have written letters when I disagreed. Strenous ones.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I am sorry you misunderstood my quotations around the word "brother." I put it in quotes because this man does not consider me a "sister."

And you also misunderstood, our church did not teach OEC, but was open to my husband and I being in leadership there even though we hold to OEC beliefs. My husband had even promised this brother that he would not teach his OEC creation views (my husband is involved in youth ministry). And as for me, most don't even know I am an OEC because it just is not that big of a deal and I never taught it, even when I taught apologetics to a women's group. There are things that require more attention like reaching the lost and preaching the gospel.

[dizzle]

I am sorry you misunderstood my quotations around the word "brother." I put it in quotes because this man does not consider me a "sister."

Well you know I would not hold that position.

And you also misunderstood, our church did not teach OEC, but was open to my husband and I being in leadership there even though we hold to OEC beliefs. My husband had even promised this brother that he would not teach creation at church (my husband is involved in youth ministry).

I am not allowed to serve at my church because I am a preterist. I would never teach preterism, but that is their policy. I both agree and disagree depending upon the level of ministry. I obviously could not be in their apologetics division for views of prophecy come into play, but I think I could pass out bulletins just fine. I would agree that there is no way that OEC could not be mentioned in a youth ministry... this is a questoin that most young Christians have. So perhaps this person's concern was justified, I cannot say. I would have an issue with someone in our youth ministry who might teach OECto the youth.


And as for me, most don't even know I am an OEC because it just is not that big of a deal and I never taught it, even when I taught apologetics to a women's group. There are things that require more attention like reaching the lost and preaching the gospel.

That last sentence is one of those types of Christian cliches that don't really further conversation too much IMHO. I find one's Creation beliefs pretty foundational to the Gospel which involved why and how we are sinners in need of redemption. Much more foundational than my dearly held preterist beliefs.

That being said, very few people at church know I am a preterist, but if I agree with them excluding me on that basis from a teaching position. I respect them for that.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Well you know I would not hold that position.

Thank you.


I would agree that there is no way that OEC could not be mentioned in a youth ministry... this is a questoin that most young Christians have. So perhaps this person's concern was justified, I cannot say.

My husband brought it up before this man ever said anything. We wanted unity more than pushing a sensitive issue.

I would have an issue with someone in our youth ministry who might teach OECto the youth.

Personally, I think a balanced view would be great. Expose them to both views in a fair way. But we never did that or anything, the issue never came up. (My husband is not full time youth worker but runs a couple programs for teen guys like a painball ministry and a "venture outreach" going on camping/hiking trips.)

I don't have a child in that age range yet but I would have issue if YEC was taught dogmatically. I don't mind it being taught, but I think it fair to give a balanced view and bring up OEC as well. But, as I said, my children are not "there" yet and so far this is not been an issue.

I find one's Creation beliefs pretty foundational to the Gospel which involved why and how we are sinners in need of redemption. Much more foundational than my dearly held preterist beliefs.

No wonder this is such a big issue with you. What are you saying regarding OEC beliefs about "why and how we are sinners in need of redemption"? I have been under the impression we have been on the same page with these issues. How does the OEC view of redemption differ from the YEC view of redemption?

(We probably should start a new thread if you wanted to answer, though. Poor PhilA is getting more than he asked for in starting this thread)

~Charleen

[dizzle]

Personally, I think a balanced view would be great. Expose them to both views in a fair way.

Churches are not doctrinally "neutral" nor should they be on important doctrines. This is like misguided but well meaniing parents sayng they will not "push" their religion on their children but just give them the choices in a neutral manner and let them make up their own mind. If I truly believe something I am being negligent if I am not a biased (that does not mean unfair) advocate of my position.



No wonder this is such a big issue with you. What are you saying regarding OEC beliefs about "why and how we are sinners in need of redemption"? I have been under the impression we have been on the same page with these issues. How does the OEC view of redemption differ from the YEC view of redemption?

I didn't say the view was necessarily different, I said one's view impacts those areas. OEC is not monolithic. You deny that physical death was brought about by the Fall. I think that has great bearing on how we are to view redemption. That does not make one not preaching the Gospel, but it certainly figures into one's redemptive outlook and worldview. In the same way that I have a much different view of the future than a futurist though we both believe in a Second Coming of Christ. We will approach and assimilate this differently. I believe, as I beleive Ham has ably demonstrated, that the core and seed of so many important doctrines, including redemption, are found in the first ten chapters of Genesis and to deny what the text says undermines them in varying degrees. I am sure you are familiar with Ham's work and I doubt I could express it much better than he.

~Charleen[/QUOTE]

[A Beautiful Truth]

I didn't say the view was necessarily different, I said one's view impacts those areas. OEC is not monolithic. You deny that physical death was brought about by the Fall.

You know, I've heard this before. The brother who left my church put this very thing in his letter, even though I tried to tell him otherwise.

What I actually believe is that physical death is a direct result of the Fall. You know, that part about God kicking man out of the Garden so he could not take and eat of the tree of life and live forever. Sooo, yes, I absolutely DO believe that physical death is a result of spiritual death. Man only died because God removed him from the tree lest he "live forever" after he sinned.

I think that has great bearing on how we are to view redemption. That does not make one not preaching the Gospel, but it certainly figures into one's redemptive outlook and worldview.

Perhaps my explanation that I DO believe in man's physical death as a result of man's spiritual death means we both view God's redemption the same? I can't think of another reason that would make our view different.

I believe, as I beleive Ham has ably demonstrated, that the core and seed of so many important doctrines, including redemption, are found in the first ten chapters of Genesis and to deny what the text says undermines them in varying degrees.

This brother who also said I did not believe physical death as a result of spiritual death also believes Ham ably demonstrates good teaching on Genesis. Perhaps there is a connection? Perhaps this teaching never came from OEC's to begin with but from AiG who said that is what OEC's believe. Because I say Romans 5:12 and I Cor. 15 is speaking of man alone does not mean I do not believe man's physical death is not a result of sin. AiG tries to make it follow that if one does not believe Romans 5:12 and I Cor. 15 speaks of animal death, then it means one does not believe human physical death is a result of the fall. It just does not follow. I am no longer suprised by the fervent defense by the YEC's I've come in contact with--you believe something about our position that AiG has told you OUT OF CONTEXT. You believe something about our position that we don't even hold to.

Ham's demonstration has led many to believe that OEC's don't believe in man's physical death as a result of spiritual death. I know a lot of OEC's and we ALL, to a person, believe that man's physical death is a result of man's spiritual death. We do not deny that, have never denied that. We just don't take Romans 5:12 and I Cor. 15 to include animals, that's all.

[dizzle]

What I actually believe is that physical death is a direct result of the Fall. You know, that part about God kicking man out of the Garden so he could not take and eat of the tree of life and live forever. Sooo, yes, I absolutely DO believe that physical death is a result of spiritual death. Man only died because God removed him from the tree lest he "live forever" after he sinned.

Then phsysical death was not a direct condequence in the same way of spiritual death.



Perhaps my explanation that I DO believe in man's physical death as a result of man's spiritual death means we both view God's redemption the same? I can't think of another reason that would make our view different.

You didn't carefully read my post. I didn't say our views were necessarily different, but that they could be as we come from differeing presuppositions that will color our views. A futurist and I both believe in the Second Coming, however, my preterism colors my understanding in a great many ways despite that agreement.

You believe death is part of God's natural order and thus not really per se something that needs to be redeemed. I do not. That is a huge philolosohical difference. When I see cruelty in nature, I have a much different view of it then you do. You see fossils ravaged by horrific diseases and say that this is how God created the world. I don't. If you cannot see that this colors much more than simply Adam and Eve you are being short-sighted.



This brother who also said I did not believe physical death as a result of spiritual death also believes Ham ably demonstrates good teaching on Genesis.

You do not believe it in the same way.


Perhaps there is a connection? Perhaps this teaching never came from OEC's to begin with but from AiG who said that is what OEC's believe.

ahhh your slam of AiG. You think I am so stupid that I simply accept what AiG has to say on anything? Ihave criticized AiG on numerous issues, but on the issues of how Genesis colors so many important doctrines, I think they have been spot on. I would not hesitate to disagree with them in whole or in part when and if I find something incorrect or obejctionable.


Because I say Romans 5:12 and I Cor. 15 is speaking of man alone does not mean I do not believe physical death is not a result of sin. AiG tries to make it follow that if one does not believe Romans 5:12 and I Cor. 15 speaks of animal death, then it means one does not believe human physical death is a result of the fall.

You do not believe human physical death is a result of the Fall in the same way I do. But putting that aside, please provide quotes and links to support your accusation. Why? Because I don't think that 1 Cor 15 or Ro 5:12 has a thing to do with animal death. I have never seen, or perhaps don't recall AiG stating what you are representing. Please provide quotes and links.



I just does not follow. I am no longer suprised by the fervent defense by the YEC's I've come in contact with--you believe something about our position that AiG has told you OUT OF CONTEXT. You believe something about our position that we don't even hold to.

Ahhh yes poor stupid Dee Dee who believes everything that AiG says. Oh and I am not the only stupid one, all YECs are eh? Is it inconceivable to you that I think for myself? Just because I think Ham more articulate than me on something I agree with him on does not follow I have not examined it, nor continue to.


Ham's demonstration has led many to believe that OEC's don't believe in man's physical death as a result of spiritual death. I know a lot of OEC's and we ALL, to a person, believe that man's physical death is a result of man's spiritual death. We do not deny that, have never denied that. We just don't take Romans 5:12 and I Cor. 15 to include animals, that's all.

And neither do I take those verses to mean that. You have raised this spectre before adn I have denied your spin on this before. It is surprising to see you doing this again.

[kuboes1831]

Very seriosly OEC is not false doctrine, YEC is as it forces wrong interpretation on scripture, puts forward fallacious psuedoscientific arguments to argie its case , and accuses all others of false doctrine and being compromisers.

Taht is hardly christian.

I am simply an old-fashioned fundamentalist

[dizzle]

Can anyone also smell the irony?

[kuboes1831]

There is no irony. Read the booklets called The Fundamentals and especially James Orr, BB Warfield, G Wright, Handley Moule. I could mention many others by why should I accept some new-fangled misinterpretation of the Bible instead of following the biblically based wisdom of our forefathers, who also had more Chrsitan love than some..

[potato sundae]

yes, yes i do

[dizzle]

You missed my point. And you further added to the irony considering your caustic attitude towards YEC that just gives me warm fuzzies of luhhhhvvvvvveeee

So drop the irrelevant personal attacks. YEC doesn't stand or fall based upon whether or not you like the attitude of some YEC. I frankly don't like some of the attitudes of some YEC, but you certainlyhave not been any better. If you wish to carry this on about attackng the Christian character of others, please , both of us, can take it to the LockerRoom.

[PhilA]

This has turned into a very interesting thread, so I let it run without interference.



Sometimes it pays to ask a basic question.



I personally don't believe that the genealogies were written for historical basis and in fact people have been missed out. Not by mistake or in error, but because they were not relevant to the point the author was trying to make. For example, the genealogies we have of Jesus are different. Not because one is wrong and one is right, but because they focus on different people - and therefore emphasize different importance in the line of Jesus.



Gen 4:14f backs this idea up as far as the Genesis genealogies go.



14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no-one who found him would kill him.


It is evident that people who were not mentioned in Genesis were alive at this point in time - but they were not mentioned as decedents of Adam in the genealogies.


Either Adam had children that were not mentioned or there were other people created as well as Adam. Either way, they are not mentioned, so relying on the genealogies to count all the people when we know that not everyone born or created is mentioned does not seem like a good idea to me.

[dizzle]

or there were other people created as well as Adam Unacceptable within Christian theology. Christ is the mediator for the sons of Adam.

[trueseeker]

This has turned into a very interesting thread, so I let it run without interference.



Sometimes it pays to ask a basic question.



I personally don't believe that the genealogies were written for historical basis and in fact people have been missed out. Not by mistake or in error, but because they were not relevant to the point the author was trying to make. For example, the genealogies we have of Jesus are different. Not because one is wrong and one is right, but because they focus on different people - and therefore emphasize different importance in the line of Jesus.



Gen 4:14f backs this idea up as far as the Genesis genealogies go.



14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no-one who found him would kill him.


It is evident that people who were not mentioned in Genesis were alive at this point in time - but they were not mentioned as decedents of Adam in the genealogies.


Either Adam had children that were not mentioned or there were other people created as well as Adam. Either way, they are not mentioned, so relying on the genealogies to count all the people when we know that not everyone born or created is mentioned does not seem like a good idea to me.


You don't have to have all of Adam's kids listed to calculate how long it was until Seth. The Bible says Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth. It doesn't say which child Seth was, he may have been the 12th, 40th or 70th, but that is not important when building a time line.

Some genelogy lists may skip a person here and there, because they were a disgrace to the family, or left the faith or something. However, they are just a list of names. The Genesis genelogies have a age that the previously listed generation was when the next was born, which makes it a more concrete list.

[dizzle]

Exactly True. And one cannot appeal really to the geneologies of Christ per se in that there is an obvious theological reason for hte structuring. This is not so in Genesis. I don't disbelieve in skipped generation, I just don't like the weakness of the argument at times.

[PhilA]

All these are very good points that do show the Scriptural evidence for the YEC belief.

I now understand where the YEC dating comes from - thanks. :smile:

[Socratism]

Exactly True. And one cannot appeal really to the geneologies of Christ per se in that there is an obvious theological reason for hte structuring. This is not so in Genesis. I don't disbelieve in skipped generation, I just don't like the weakness of the argument at times.

Having studied the scriptural methods used to derive the "age of the Earth" I would be interested in hearing some detail regarding "the weakness of the argument at times". My sense is that it is quite strong.

I will admit that overall differences compared to the various LXX versions weakens this case somewhat.

[trueseeker]

Having studied the scriptural methods used to derive the "age of the Earth" I would be interested in hearing some detail regarding "the weakness of the argument at times". My sense is that it is quite strong.

I will admit that overall differences compared to the various LXX versions weakens this case somewhat.


If you are referring to exact dates, there are a number of problems. For examples:

When Adam was 130 years old he had Seth. Is that 130 years from when he was created, or the fall? And he was 130 years and how many months and days old?

One of nine fathers in the lineage to Noah, some manuscripts have as 165 years old and some as 65 years old, when he had the next in line, which manuscripts are correct and which have the error?

We could guess that the people's age when they had the next in line to average age listed, plus six months. Then we would add 5 years just in the ten generations from Adam to Noah, 6 or 7 more to get to Jacob.

Then in the line of kings, when they were listing how long kings reigned, did they always round down like a birthday, or did they round up sometimes? If a king ruled 9 years and 11 months, do they list him as ruling 9 years or 10 years?

How many years were there between the Babylonian captivity and Jesus? Many say around 400, but I have heard some say closer to 600.

Was Jesus born at the start of the calendar, 2, 4, or 6 BC?

So we aren't going to get exact dates. However if you figure it from what the Bible provides, you are sure to fall in the 5,900 to 6,300 year range.

Even if you guessed that half the Genesis genelogies are missing to Jacob, that would only add approximately 2,000 years. You can't really add any time in with the kings, because there were two lines of kings going similtaniously, both listing king's reigns that match total years.

[trueseeker]

Having studied the scriptural methods used to derive the "age of the Earth" I would be interested in hearing some detail regarding "the weakness of the argument at times". My sense is that it is quite strong.

I will admit that overall differences compared to the various LXX versions weakens this case somewhat.

Sorry Soc,

After rereading your post, I realized you were asking those who don't accept the Biblical time lines, why? Not, asking for the possible flaws in the time line, as I thought when I first replied.

[Socratism]

From these laws we are able to see that long time intervals are involved.

What are these laws that indicate long time periods?

[Tickle Me Goody]

What are these laws that indicate long time periods?
See:

http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm


for a discussion of dating using radioactive decay laws.



goody

[Tickle Me Goody]

The thread question was where in the Bible do YEC's come up with a date for the earth.
Sorry about that. I left out the first part of what I had originally typed which was to present that (as I understand it) YECs get an age of the earth by interpreting a literal 24 hour day in the first chapter of genesis --- and that this should then be reconcilled with what we know of the physical universe. Without this statement, my post sounds decidedly off topic. Perhaps you would still think so even if I did add this.

I will edit my post and delete it. Perhaps you should do so with yours also, since it copies my text.


goody

[A Beautiful Truth]

Then phsysical death was not a direct condequence in the same way of spiritual death.

Not nessesarily in the same way, but still a direct consequence nonetheless because the Tree of Life was taken away.

I didn't say our views were necessarily different, but that they could be as we come from differeing presuppositions that will color our views. ...You believe death is part of God's natural order and thus not really per se something that needs to be redeemed.

True, I believe earth was created with death as part of its natural order, but man was protected from death before he sinned. Man will be redeemed, but animals will not so what do you mean that death needs to be redeemed?

When I see cruelty in nature, I have a much different view of it then you do. You see fossils ravaged by horrific diseases and say that this is how God created the world. I don't. If you cannot see that this colors much more than simply Adam and Eve you are being short-sighted.

The OE/YE argument boils down to this after everything else is answered--philosophy. It seems many peoples main core objection to OEC is animal suffering and death and that is not even an argument that is argued scripturally.


ahhh your slam of AiG. You think I am so stupid that I simply accept what AiG has to say on anything?

You are taking this way too emotionally.

You do not believe human physical death is a result of the Fall in the same way I do.

But I DO believe it in the same SCRIPTURAL way, just not the same philisophical way, Dee Dee.

I don't think that 1 Cor 15 or Ro 5:12 has a thing to do with animal death.

Thank you for making sure I got your point. I commend you on your proper exegesis of those passages, Dee Dee, but not all YEC's believe as you do.


Ahhh yes poor stupid Dee Dee who believes everything that AiG says. Oh and I am not the only stupid one, all YECs are eh? Is it inconceivable to you that I think for myself? Just because I think Ham more articulate than me on something I agree with him on does not follow I have not examined it, nor continue to.

And your tone? I have not meant to make you feel like you are stupid, Dee Dee and I apologize to you if I have. We share different philsophies on animal death but I do not consider you stupid because you share those beliefs. Most of my friends believe it your way, and I respect them as Christians very much. Please don't think I am making this more than a discussion. It has its place and I am not getting personal with you in my argumentation, at least I have not intended. I will try to be extra careful, however, as I do not want to personally offend you, you are my sister.

~Charleen

[Socratism]

See:

http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm

for a discussion of dating using radioactive decay laws.
goody

I am quite familiar with radiometric dating and its assumptions.

I wanted to see whether you had other age dating approaches that were included in your "laws that indicate long time periods". Do you?

[Socratism]

goody,

you said:
YECs get an age of the earth by interpreting a literal 24 hour day in the first chapter of genesis

That is only a part of the approach.

Basically we start by taking the geneologies in Genesis as being correct. These particularly geneologies are unique in scripture because they are written in an "interlocking" way which guards against there being time lapses in them.

These geneologies, along with some other time spans mentioned in scripture, such as the sojourn in Egypt, takes one into historical time generally agreed upon by secularists.

Finally we take the statement of Christ that marriage was established from the beginning to be referring to Adam and Eve.

The sum total of all this leads directly to Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC, a fine piece of scholarship as attested to by none other than Steven J. Gould.

Of course this date could be wrong if any part of its analysis is incorrect. For instance, the LXX Greek translation from the Hebrew several hundreds of years prior to Christ has different numbers in the Genesis geneologies, most often different by exactly 100 years in six or seven places.

Some would argue that creation week lasted millions of years rather than 6 days.

So basically one must choose which of the alternatives one should believe.

Since I have found through long study that all of scripture is highly reliable, whereas I have lived long enough to see many speculations in science eventually shot down and replaced, I have decided to go with what scripture says until proven otherwise.

Fortunately, the potential answers to some "sticky" mysteries are beginning to become more clear in my mind, with solutions to the light travel time and radiometric age mysteries very close to being resolved because of one phenomenon already known by science to be true, i.e. time is not fixed but is relative.

[Tickle Me Goody]

I am quite familiar with radiometric dating and its assumptions.

I wanted to see whether you had other age dating approaches that were included in your "laws that indicate long time periods". Do you?
Since I am a physicist, the physical laws that I suggest are those related to physics. (I know that others like Glenn Morton can cite other features in geology.) My other indication of long time periods is of the galaxies rather than the earth. They are the distances to stars as measured by the speed of light, luminosity and maybe parallax for the closer stars

Meanwhile, what is your negative view of radiological dating?

Goody

[Tickle Me Goody]

goody,

That is only a part of the approach.

Basically we start by taking the geneologies in Genesis as being correct. These particularly geneologies are unique in scripture because they are written in an "interlocking" way which guards against there being time lapses in them.

These geneologies, along with some other time spans mentioned in scripture, such as the sojourn in Egypt, takes one into historical time generally agreed upon by secularists.
That would apply only to dating how old mankind is. I was referring to the age of the earth itself.

Goody

[Socrates]

You know, I've heard this before. The brother who left my church put this very thing in his letter, even though I tried to tell him otherwise.
We have only Charleen's side of the story -- remember Proverbs 18:17:
The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
What I actually believe is that physical death is a direct result of the Fall. You know, that part about God kicking man out of the Garden so he could not take and eat of the tree of life and live forever. Sooo, yes, I absolutely DO believe that physical death is a result of spiritual death.
But you have a problem with undoubted Homo sapiens fossils that are dated -- by methods Ross accepts -- as older than his date range for Adam.

Perhaps this teaching never came from OEC's to begin with but from AiG who said that is what OEC's believe. Because I say Romans 5:12 and I Cor. 15 is speaking of man alone does not mean I do not believe man's physical death is not a result of sin. AiG tries to make it follow that if one does not believe Romans 5:12 and I Cor. 15 speaks of animal death, then it means one does not believe human physical death is a result of the fall.
What crap. Perhaps Charleen is following her hero Ross in getting her information about AiG from God-haters like Plimer? Fact, to justify their position on no animal death before the Fall, they invoke passages teaching the creation and restoration of vegetarian diets for animals (Genesis 1:13, Isaiah 11 and 65), and the cosmic nature of God's curse on creation (Romans 8:20-22). In fact, Norman Geisler did the same, yet is blind to the inconsistency with his old-earth view. All this is discussed in AiG's article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0529charisma.asp and I've previously posted the relevant sections on TWeb.

It just does not follow. I am no longer suprised by the fervent defense by the YEC's I've come in contact with--you believe something about our position that AiG has told you OUT OF CONTEXT. You believe something about our position that we don't even hold to.
Ah yes, blame AiG -- at least the caricature of AiG that Ross and Plimer paint. E.g. Ross's claim that YECs believe in no animal death before the fall because ‘Young-earthers sentimentalize the deaths of nonsoulish animals because it makes them think of their pets.’

Ham's demonstration has led many to believe that OEC's don't believe in man's physical death as a result of spiritual death.
For a time, you were defending Jesus' rez as spiritual, at least that's the impression you gave, to parallel a spiritual death of Adam. You're not the only one, and some actually do teach this (I accept that you don't).

I know a lot of OEC's and we ALL, to a person, believe that man's physical death is a result of man's spiritual death. We do not deny that, have never denied that. We just don't take Romans 5:12 and I Cor. 15 to include animals, that's all.
Yeah, so you've said, but they are hardly the lynchpin of YEC arguments about animal death either.

[Socrates]

That would apply only to dating how old mankind is. I was referring to the age of the earth itself.
And as Socratism says, the earth is only 5 days older than mankind. The great biblical chronologers knew that by dating man, they were dating the earth as well. That's why the church unanimously agreed that the earth was only thousands of years old, until they became intimidated by deist-founded uniformitarian geology in the early 19th century. They knew nothing of the "gap theory" or huge gaps in the chronogenealogies of Genesis 1.

[Socrates]

Since I am a physicist, the physical laws that I suggest are those related to physics.
Are we meant to be intimidated? Drs Russell Humphreys, Larry Vardiman, Eugene Chaffin and Keith Wanser are physicists and they disagree with you.

(I know that others like Glenn Morton can cite other features in geology.)
Is that meant to intimidate us too? Drs Andrew Snelling, Steve Austin and Tas Walker are geologists and disagree.

My other indication of long time periods is of the galaxies rather than the earth. They are the distances to stars as measured by the speed of light, luminosity and maybe parallax for the closer stars
So? This assumes things about the speed of light and time frames, and as I've pointed out, big bangers have their own light-travel difficulty called the "horizon problem". That is, how to explain the near uniformity of temperature of distant regions of space where radiation should not have had time to traverse and equilibrate the temperature. Magueijo and others propose solving this problem with a much greater c in the past, so evolutionists have no right to complain, in principle, that some creationists (not including me) have used this to explain their own light-travel problem.

The inflation hypothesis was proposed to solve this huge problem. But Guth's original idea was wrong, and there is far from any consensus on what inflation model should replace it. Some evolutionists are resorting to alternatives such as the ekpyrotic cyclic model [Steinhardt, P. and Turok, N., A cyclic model of the universe, Science 296(5572):1436–1439, 2002].

There is no mechanism that has been observed to cause superluminal space expansion, just speculations about what phase changes would do. And astronomers don't know what mechanism turns off the inflation once it starts—the ‘graceful exit’ problem [Kraniotis, G.V., String cosmology, International Journal of Modern Physics A 15(12):1707–1756, 2000].

For more information, see Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp) by a Ph.D. candidate in astrophysics.

And if big bangers are so willing to accept inflation, they have no right to point the finger at the YEC equivalent. That is, Dr Humphreys' white hole cosmogony, based on both general reativity and the biblical teaching that God "stretched out the heavens". And this model points out that gravitational time dilation very early on could have slowed clocks near the center of this (i.e. near Earth) relative to more distant region. So in six days measured on gravitationally dilated Earth clocks, light could have traversed to us from very distant regions. See How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp)

Meanwhile, what is your negative view of radiological dating?
Why reinvent the wheel -- this has been amply explained by pointing out faulty assumptions and many anomalies, as per the articles at Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp).

So it would help if you bothered to read what YECs say before spruiking forth with criticisms that have long been answered, and rejecting the authority of Scripture in favor of fallible "science".

[Socrates]

PhilA,

The old earth creationist would bring up the fact that Hebrew genelogies often have gaps,
So why not demonstrate them in Genesis 5 and 11 where the age of the father at the birth of the next in line is given?

... with only the most notable figues beign mentioned.
Oh yeah, what was notable about Jared or Mahalaleel?

The old earth creationist would say that the length of the Genesis days are not 24 hours long (as God's seventh day still continues),
It does no such thing, by analogy with Exodus 20:8-11. If Charleen were right, then every weekly sabbath must continue as well :doh:

and that the genelogies give us a time estimation of when God created Adam and Eve, but not when He created the earth (because the previous days were ages).
Oh right, days with evening and morning and a number were long periods of time.

But do not be surprised at how vicious this topic is argued.
Yeah, old-earth compromisers like Hugh Ross even resort to insinuating that YECs are Gnostic and Judaizing heretics, and to try to find dirt on YECs from overt Bible-mocking God-haters like Ian Plimer, or vilifying saintly scholars like Archbishop Ussher with mocking cartoons.

[Socrates]

Exactly True. And one cannot appeal really to the geneologies of Christ per se in that there is an obvious theological reason for hte structuring. This is not so in Genesis. I don't disbelieve in skipped generation, I just don't like the weakness of the argument at times.Oh, I thought you did believe the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies had gaps. But that's cool :thumb:

Exactly right, one can't use genealogies that are intentionally structured with gaps to justify gaps in other genealogies that seem to be structured to exclude them. For example, they give the age at the birth of the next in line (showing that they are chronogenealogies) and saying "other sons and daughters" (showing that the person concerned was likewise a son not a distant descendant).

Sure, arguments can be weak at times, but one should consider the strongest form of the argument. It is based on far more than blind hyperliteralism, but careful contextual study.

[Socrates]

There is no irony. Read the booklets called The Fundamentals and especially James Orr, BB Warfield, G Wright, Handley Moule. I could mention many others by why should I accept some new-fangled misinterpretation of the Bible instead of following the biblically based wisdom of our forefathers,
Actually, these early fundamentalists proposed a new-fangled interpretation of Genesis, unknown in the Patristics or Reformers, because they were intimidated by long-age "science".

who also had more Chrsitan love than some..
Sheesh, irony meter on overload here.

[Socrates]

If you are referring to exact dates, there are a number of problems. For examples:

When Adam was 130 years old he had Seth. Is that 130 years from when he was created, or the fall? And he was 130 years and how many months and days old?
That's true, which is why I'll never die on the hill for an exact year. But you'd be able to add about 20 years at most to the chronology all the way from Adam to Abraham. You certainly can't get millions or billions of years!

One of nine fathers in the lineage to Noah, some manuscripts have as 165 years old and some as 65 years old, when he had the next in line, which manuscripts are correct and which have the error?
The Masoretic MSS are correct, while the LXX is demosntrably edited. See Some Remarks Preliminary to a Biblical Chronology (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv12n1_chronology.asp)

Then in the line of kings, when they were listing how long kings reigned, did they always round down like a birthday, or did they round up sometimes? If a king ruled 9 years and 11 months, do they list him as ruling 9 years or 10 years?
Again true, but here we have biblical time references to the total time of the Egyptian sojourn to the Monarchy, and from the beginning of the Monarchy to the Babylonian captivity. I explained this at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=495540&postcount=7

How many years were there between the Babylonian captivity and Jesus? Many say around 400, but I have heard some say closer to 600.
But we can date this very accurately to 588 BC

Was Jesus born at the start of the calendar, 2, 4, or 6 BC?
About 6, because we know that Herod died in 4 BC, after having tried to kill all babies under 2. But this is not necessary, because we have the absolute date of the fall of Jerusalem to Nebby.

So we aren't going to get exact dates. However if you figure it from what the Bible provides, you are sure to fall in the 5,900 to 6,300 year range.
Yeah.

Even if you guessed that half the Genesis genelogies are missing to Jacob, that would only add approximately 2,000 years. You can't really add any time in with the kings, because there were two lines of kings going similtaniously, both listing king's reigns that match total years.
That's a point -- you'd be hard-pressed to stretch the chronology even as far as 10,000 years BP, no matter what text, no matter how many months you add to everyone's age, and no matter what gaps were missing (within reason).

[Socrates]

Having studied the scriptural methods used to derive the "age of the Earth" I would be interested in hearing some detail regarding "the weakness of the argument at times". My sense is that it is quite strong.
Me too. The AiG article Biblical chronogenealogies (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n3_Chronogenealogies.pdf) (PDF) seems to cover all bases. It is far from hyperliteralistic, but seems to have been largely ignored by those who insist on huge gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.

I will admit that overall differences compared to the various LXX versions weakens this case somewhat.
That is also covered in the above article.

[kuboes1831]

Do you know! Socrates is the most brilliant person who ever lived. He seems to know everything.

The trouble is that he is wrong on all counts.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Do you know! Socrates is the most brilliant person who ever lived. He seems to know everything.

The trouble is that he is wrong on all counts.
Not true! He spelled Socrates correctly.

GG

[kuboes1831]

There's a spoof YEC w3ebsite. The arguments are just like Socrates. Is he a spoof atheist trying to ridicule YEC in the same way?

I just wondered.

[Tickle Me Goody]

There's a spoof YEC w3ebsite. The arguments are just like Socrates. Is he a spoof atheist trying to ridicule YEC in the same way?

I just wondered.
Great thought. That is the one thing that makes sense!

GG

[dizzle]

Take these sorts of attacks to the Locker room. This area is intended for civil and controlled debate not pot shots.

[bigsplit]

I posted this website about the new predictions on the geometry of the Universe. It is in support of my own hypothesis as my model predicted such a geometry. You ask yourself this, which is a better model: one that predicted the geometry of the Universe, or one that is so weak it attempts to, but with disclaimer? My Big Split theory makes no such disclaimer and can be proven wrong. We will see what happens. Read about it and then review my Big Bang Alternative thread, my theory may seem too surreal, but it looks as though our Universe is matching up.



http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879