Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: How Old is This Thing?

  1. #21
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    That doesn't help the case at all, as the genealogies in Genesis are designed by their nature to give a chronology. http://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies
    We are given specific times for when the next person in the genealogy was born, this takes the possibility of gaps out of the picture.
    As a YEC professor pointed out to me recently, if the genealogies in Gen 5, 10, and 11 were intended to present a chronology with no gaps, they would have included a total number of years for the whole period. But they don't. This professor, John Whitcomb, and most of the early YECs see room for modest gaps in the genealogies. Your interpretation is much more rigid and inflexible than John Whitcomb's, and is ultimately indefensible.

  2. #22
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,435
    Amen (Given)
    16103
    Amen (Received)
    3089
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    As a YEC professor pointed out to me recently, if the genealogies in Gen 5, 10, and 11 were intended to present a chronology with no gaps, they would have included a total number of years for the whole period. But they don't. This professor, John Whitcomb, and most of the early YECs see room for modest gaps in the genealogies. Your interpretation is much more rigid and inflexible than John Whitcomb's, and is ultimately indefensible.
    The evidence that a total would be included as a necessary component for a chronology is where?

    Look they have been understood to present a chronology for some time. Even Augustine, who many OEC's site, saw them this way.

    ‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.’ Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, De Civitate Dei

    Oh, look, even Origen took it that way.

    ‘After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phaethon, were more recent than any others.’ Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) 1.19, Ante-Nicene Fathers

    Emphasis mine.

    Even Josephus and many others did as well.

    Did you read the link I gave? It goes into much more depth of why these genealogies were intended to convey a chronology. From what I understand John Whitcomb has done good work, but he is not the end all be all of YEC's.

    Oh, and a "modest gap" surely wouldn't count over 100,000 years.

    I also see that you missed my quote of Jude, which certainly seems to take the idea of gaps out as well. There are also many points at which a gap is explicitly ruled out, such as between Seth and Adam(there are many more if you would read the link), and the number of gaps necessary( approximately 250 just to get an extra 10,000 years) to even get a fraction of what would be necessary is staggering. They are again ruled out by the fact that X was Y number of years when he fathered Z. Meaning that X and Y were alive at the same time.

    Given the evidence I have seen I have to say that I think John Whitcomb is completely wrong on this one.
    Safka, you are NOT "unknown", you were loved by many, and you will not be forgotten. I will always remember you Puginator.


  3. #23
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,197
    Amen (Given)
    18003
    Amen (Received)
    5909
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    No it's not. If there are people out there who aren't descended of Adam, then they are potentially left out of the plan for salvation. This comes from Jesus being our "Kinsman Redeemer", which is a theme that is seen throughout the Bible. Besides homo sapiens shows up before 150,000 years ago. This would put human like creatures with signs of culture, art, and possibly religion as being some kind of animal.
    I have one comment. There are no people not descended from Adam. Adam was the first man.

    We will just have to disagree on much of this.

  4. #24
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    The evidence that a total would be included as a necessary component for a chronology is where?
    In general, we've got two choices in interpreting Scripture:
    1) Approach the Scripture with pre-conceived conclusions as to what it does and does not say. E.g. insist that Gen 5, 10, 11 MUST (or must NOT) be presenting gapless chronologies.
    2) Approach the Scripture honestly and openly, and allow Scripture itself to determine what it is trying to communicate to us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    From what I understand John Whitcomb has done good work, but he is not the end all be all of YEC's.
    True. Whitcomb is an OT scholar. Most modern YECs are not, with no clue how to read or interpret the Hebrew Bible.


    Here are some of the points that were recently made by Mark A. Snoeberger, a YEC professor at Detroit Baptist Seminary. His article is due to be published very soon in the Seminary's journal.

    1) The author of Gen 5, 11 never says WHY he includes the numbers that he does. This is ultimately a matter of speculation.
    2) "If the author’s purpose in using these numbers was to establish the age of the earth, then he
    includes both too much and too little data." On one hand, details about additional children and the age at which the patriarch died are irrelevant to the age of the earth. On the other hand, the one thing that would have PROVEN this to be a chronology, and grand total, is omitted. (Note that totals are given for other biblical periods, e.g. the total time of slavery in Egypt, but that NO biblical author gives a total for the genealogies of Gen 5, 10, 11.)
    3) Thus, the purpose of the numbers in Gen 5, 11 must be BROADER than, and maybe even DIFFERENT than, the establishment of the age of the earth.
    4) The numbers in the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint are different; each would result in a different age for the earth.
    5) Luke includes the name "Cainan" in his genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:47), which is completely absent from Gen 11 in ANY extant manuscript of the Masoretic Text. If we believe that both are inspired and inerrant, Moses must have omitted at least one generation from his list in Gen 11. Thus Gen 11 is NOT a gapless genealogy.
    6) According to Gen 11:26, "When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." If we insist that this is a strict, literal chronology, we would conclude that Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old. But we would be WRONG! Here's why:
    a) according to Gen 12:4, Abram was 75 years old when he left Terah.
    b) according to Acts 7:4, Abram left after Terah had already died.
    c) according to Gen 11:32, Terah died when he was 205 years old.
    d) hence, Abraham was 75 years old AFTER Terah was 205 years old, so he could not have been born until after Terah was 130 years old (NOT when Terah was 70 years old).
    e) hence, here is how Snoeberger suggests that Gen 11:26 should be interpreted: “When Terah had lived 70 years, he began having children. The son critical to the biblical storyline was Abram. After he began having children, Terah lived 135 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Terah lived 205 years, and then he died.”
    f) since the grammar here is essentialy the same as the other generations in Gen 5 and 11, this is how all of the generations here should be interpreted.

    In summary, the claim that the genealogies of Gen 5, 10, 11 are intended to present a gapless chronology is false, contradicted by the biblical text itself.
    Last edited by Kbertsche; 01-24-2014 at 06:07 AM.

  5. #25
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,435
    Amen (Given)
    16103
    Amen (Received)
    3089
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    In general, we've got two choices in interpreting Scripture:
    1) Approach the Scripture with pre-conceived conclusions as to what it does and does not say. E.g. insist that Gen 5, 10, 11 MUST (or must NOT) be presenting gapless chronologies.
    2) Approach the Scripture honestly and openly, and allow Scripture itself to determine what it is trying to communicate to us.
    I go with the second.

    True. Whitcomb is an OT scholar. Most modern YECs are not, with no clue how to read or interpret the Hebrew Bible.
    There are other YEC OT scholars. Again, he is not the only authority out there.

    Here are some of the points that were recently made by Mark A. Snoeberger, a YEC professor at Detroit Baptist Seminary. His article is due to be published very soon in the Seminary's journal.

    1) The author of Gen 5, 11 never says WHY he includes the numbers that he does. This is ultimately a matter of speculation.
    There's far more than "speculation", if you had even bothered to read the article, one of the objections below shows that you didn't.

    2) "If the author’s purpose in using these numbers was to establish the age of the earth, then he
    includes both too much and too little data." On one hand, details about additional children and the age at which the patriarch died are irrelevant to the age of the earth. On the other hand, the one thing that would have PROVEN this to be a chronology, and grand total, is omitted. (Note that totals are given for other biblical periods, e.g. the total time of slavery in Egypt, but that NO biblical author gives a total for the genealogies of Gen 5, 10, 11.)
    The only example you give is when a specific number was used to show God's commitment to fulfilling His promise to Abraham. The time period was specified beforehand, and verified afterwards in Exodus.

    Genesis 15:13 Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

    This doesn't really fit in with what you are trying to claim.

    3) Thus, the purpose of the numbers in Gen 5, 11 must be BROADER than, and maybe even DIFFERENT than, the establishment of the age of the earth.

    Broader, probably, but such a purpose is certainly not excluded, and if you had looked at the evidence definitely included.

    4) The numbers in the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint are different; each would result in a different age for the earth.

    Already answered in the link I gave. You didn't read it again. I'm rather sick of people ignoring evidence I give, so this will be my last response here.

    5) Luke includes the name "Cainan" in his genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:47), which is completely absent from Gen 11 in ANY extant manuscript of the Masoretic Text. If we believe that both are inspired and inerrant, Moses must have omitted at least one generation from his list in Gen 11. Thus Gen 11 is NOT a gapless genealogy.

    Already answered in the article I linked to.

    6) According to Gen 11:26, "When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." If we insist that this is a strict, literal chronology, we would conclude that Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old. But we would be WRONG! Here's why:
    a) according to Gen 12:4, Abram was 75 years old when he left Terah.
    b) according to Acts 7:4, Abram left after Terah had already died.
    c) according to Gen 11:32, Terah died when he was 205 years old.
    d) hence, Abraham was 75 years old AFTER Terah was 205 years old, so he could not have been born until after Terah was 130 years old (NOT when Terah was 70 years old).
    e) hence, here is how Snoeberger suggests that Gen 11:26 should be interpreted: “When Terah had lived 70 years, he began having children. The son critical to the biblical storyline was Abram. After he began having children, Terah lived 135 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Terah lived 205 years, and then he died.”
    f) since the grammar here is essentialy the same as the other generations in Gen 5 and 11, this is how all of the generations here should be interpreted.

    Ah, finally an objection that wouldn't have really been addressed so far, but it has been answered before, so I don't know why Snoeberger didn't know about it. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oldabe.php

    In summary, children were often listed in matters of importance. Example would be Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham being listed second, was actually the youngest.

    Genesis 9:24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,

    This would still not touch the chronology in any major way.

    In summary, the claim that the genealogies of Gen 5, 10, 11 are intended to present a gapless chronology is false, contradicted by the biblical text itself.
    Um, no. The more obvious conclusion is that Snoeberger hasn't looked at all the evidence.

    Like I said above, I'm done here. I'm sick of people ignoring the evidence I give on this topic. Happens almost every time I try to discuss this topic, and it's sickening. Sorry if that sounds overly harsh, but I am worn out. I have nothing personal against you, but when this kind of thing happens repeatedly it gets very frustrating very fast.

    Oh, and in my previous post it should say "X and Z were alive at the same time", I didn't notice the error until after I had gone to bed and woken up.
    Safka, you are NOT "unknown", you were loved by many, and you will not be forgotten. I will always remember you Puginator.


  6. #26
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    There's far more than "speculation", if you had even bothered to read the article, one of the objections below shows that you didn't.
    It is generally considered bad form to "argue by web link". Please make your points and arguments in your own words if you want others to take them seriously and respond to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    4) The numbers in the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint are different; each would result in a different age for the earth.
    Already answered in the link I gave. You didn't read it again. I'm rather sick of people ignoring evidence I give, so this will be my last response here.
    Again, you tried to answer this by web link, not in your own words. But your link to Sarfati does not really "answer" this. It does not engage the obvious point: if the ancient translators of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint changed the numbers, they apparently did NOT view these numbers as establishing a gapless chronology back to creation, but saw some othe purpose for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    5) Luke includes the name "Cainan" in his genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:47), which is completely absent from Gen 11 in ANY extant manuscript of the Masoretic Text. If we believe that both are inspired and inerrant, Moses must have omitted at least one generation from his list in Gen 11. Thus Gen 11 is NOT a gapless genealogy.
    Already answered in the article I linked to.
    Yes, Sarfati argues against this, but only by presenting partial evidence and questionable claims. Sarfati is NOT a textual scholar.
    1) where is his evidence that early copies of the Septuagint do NOT include the name "Cainan" in Gen 11?? Can he point us to an extant manuscript that we can examine? I think he is only speculating and inferring this from the fact that Josephus omitted it. I don't believe we have any solid textual evidence that the earliest copies of Septuagint omitted "Cainan".
    2) the name "Cainan" WAS included in the Book of Jubilees, an extra biblical text dating before 100 BC. So it was NOT first introduced by a later copyist of Luke, as Sarfati claims.
    3) essentially all textual scholars consider the name to have been in Luke's original autographs in 3:36. Only two early manuscripts omit it, one of which is highly suspect for other reasons. ALL other early manuscripts include the name "Cainan" (or "Kenam"). Snoeberger quotes a textual scholar who says that this issue is essentially a text-critical "slam-dunk". (BTW, Snoeberger referenced Sarfati's claim on this, but apparently did not find it compelling.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    6) According to Gen 11:26, "When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." If we insist that this is a strict, literal chronology, we would conclude that Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old. But we would be WRONG! Here's why:
    a) according to Gen 12:4, Abram was 75 years old when he left Terah.
    b) according to Acts 7:4, Abram left after Terah had already died.
    c) according to Gen 11:32, Terah died when he was 205 years old.
    d) hence, Abraham was 75 years old AFTER Terah was 205 years old, so he could not have been born until after Terah was 130 years old (NOT when Terah was 70 years old).
    e) hence, here is how Snoeberger suggests that Gen 11:26 should be interpreted: “When Terah had lived 70 years, he began having children. The son critical to the biblical storyline was Abram. After he began having children, Terah lived 135 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Terah lived 205 years, and then he died.”
    f) since the grammar here is essentialy the same as the other generations in Gen 5 and 11, this is how all of the generations here should be interpreted.
    Ah, finally an objection that wouldn't have really been addressed so far, but it has been answered before, so I don't know why Snoeberger didn't know about it. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oldabe.php
    You've missed the point entirely! Your link agrees with Snoeberger! In Gen 11:26, "When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, ...", it does NOT necessarily mean that Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old. Rather, it means that Terah began having children when he was 70 years old, and that Abram was the most prominent of these children. By extension, the formula "When X had lived N years, he became the father of Y" should be read as, "When X had lived N years he began having children, the most prominent of whom is Y". (And we would expect that roughly half of these children are females, almost none of whom are listed in the genealogies). Hence, these numbers do not provide an accurate gapless chronology, and should not be used to try to calculate an accurate date for creation. (Note: I suspect that nearly all who have tried to use the genealogies in this way have overlooked this issue of Terah and Abraham, and are off by at least 60 years from this issue alone.)
    Last edited by Kbertsche; 01-25-2014 at 12:21 AM.

  7. #27
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,424
    Amen (Given)
    771
    Amen (Received)
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    As a YEC professor pointed out to me recently, if the genealogies in Gen 5, 10, and 11 were intended to present a chronology with no gaps, they would have included a total number of years for the whole period. But they don't. This professor, John Whitcomb, and most of the early YECs see room for modest gaps in the genealogies. Your interpretation is much more rigid and inflexible than John Whitcomb's, and is ultimately indefensible.
    According to the Holy Spirit there were gaps, here is the one given:
    ". . . which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, . . . " -- Luke 3:35, 36.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  8. #28
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,197
    Amen (Given)
    18003
    Amen (Received)
    5909
    . . . son of . . . can skip many generations. Many generations.

  9. #29
    Freshman tharkun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Posts
    16
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    There is LOTS of scientific evidence for an old earth, and NO solid scientific evidence for a young earth. Here are just a few items:

    1) the number of annual layers in lake varves puts the oldest back to about 45,000 years (and allows absolute calibration of radiocarbon dates to this age)
    This ASSUMES that the varves are actually annual and that the earth has reached equilibrium in regards to the carbon isotope ratios (when it has been known for decades that the earth is not at equilibrium).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    2) the thickness of coral reefs puts them back over 100,000 years.
    This ASSUMES that coral reef build-up times are constant and subject to increases or decreases due to local conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    3) the number of annual layers in ice puts them well over 100,000 years
    This ASSUMES that the ice layers are actually annual, when it is KNOWN that it only represents temperature fluctuations and not necessarily seasonal fluctuations. You can get multiple layers built up in a single snow fall as has been demonstrated. See also, the lost squadron.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    4) the light from SN 1987A took 168,000 years to reach us. Further, its debris ring has been resolved by Hubble and the time lag for the explosion to illuminate this debris ring has been measured. This is all consistent with a 168,000 light-year distance and the present-day speed of light, evidence that the speed of light has not changed. Further yet, the decay of its light curve matched the expected radioactive decay rates, showing that the rates of radioactive decay have not changed in 168,000 years.
    This ASSUMES that measured distances are accurate and that the speed of light or decay rates are constant, something also that has been shown to be incorrect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    5) the ages of the line of volcanos along the Hawaiin Island and Emperor Seamount chain get progressively older the further along the chain one goes away from the hotspot under the island of Hawaii, up to about 80 million years. These ages are consistent with the rate of tectonic plate motion away from this hotspot as measured by GPS satellites.
    This ASSUMES that radiometric dating is accurate. On examples where we know the dates, radiometric dating fails; so why should we believe that it works on samples that we don't know the date?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    6) all radioactive elements with half-lives less than about 500 million years are essentially absent from the earth's surface, UNLESS they are presently being made by cosmic rays or some other mechanism (e.g. Radiocarbon). But we DO see elements with half-lives longer than 500 million years, and we see lots more of the long-lived ones than the short-lived ones. This is consistent with a roughly 5 billion year old earth; after about 10 half lives, the isotopes are essentially gone (reduced in abundance by a factor of 1000). In fact, if we assume that U-235 and U-238 were originally the same abundance and look at their present-day abundances, we calculate that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old.
    This ASSUMES (again) that decay rates are constant and have always been constant. Something known to be incorrect.

    tharkun

  10. #30
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Missourah, USA
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,274
    Amen (Given)
    3116
    Amen (Received)
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by tharkun View Post
    This ASSUMES that the varves are actually annual and that the earth has reached equilibrium in regards to the carbon isotope ratios (when it has been known for decades that the earth is not at equilibrium).



    This ASSUMES that coral reef build-up times are constant and subject to increases or decreases due to local conditions.



    This ASSUMES that the ice layers are actually annual, when it is KNOWN that it only represents temperature fluctuations and not necessarily seasonal fluctuations. You can get multiple layers built up in a single snow fall as has been demonstrated. See also, the lost squadron.




    This ASSUMES that measured distances are accurate and that the speed of light or decay rates are constant, something also that has been shown to be incorrect.




    This ASSUMES that radiometric dating is accurate. On examples where we know the dates, radiometric dating fails; so why should we believe that it works on samples that we don't know the date?




    This ASSUMES (again) that decay rates are constant and have always been constant. Something known to be incorrect.

    tharkun
    But since all those phenomena cross-correlate either 1) each method is fairly accurate or 2) there's some confounding variable that causes ALL of them to vary in the same way.

    #1 is a LOT more likely and make most sense ergo stands as the best explanation unless you can suggest a variable for choice #2.

    K54

    P.S. OTOH, you've posited many unrelated causes, when the simplest explanation is that the variable controlling them all is time. You've also included PRATTs, such as change in the speed of light in vacuo which is bizarre and has no purpose other to fit presupposition of a young Earth.

    The downed bomber is also a PRATT.
    Last edited by klaus54; 06-05-2014 at 12:33 AM. Reason: p.s.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •