Announcement

Collapse

Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).


The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.


Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.


The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.



Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:


Forum Rules: Here

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

How Old is This Thing?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'm holding to an old universe/old earth/young earth view.

    1) The earth is as old as the universe. 2) The earth was given form in 6 days just as Genesis account says. [Day one, the Sun is a star. Day 4, solar wind blows the debris past the earth where the Sun, Moon and star become visible as distinct lights in the sky.]

    Typical measured ages, 13.8 billion for the universe. 4.5 billion for the earth in the solar system. 6,000+ from the 6 day account. Based in flood dating, over 5,000 years to the flood event alone.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ar/cardat.html
    Last edited by 37818; 01-24-2014, 04:20 PM.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . 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 KJV

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

    Comment


    • #17
      . . . 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.
      Earth rock do not date that old, the 4.5 billion is base on other than earth rocks.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . 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 KJV

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

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        I do believe that Adam and Eve were the real first people.
        Figured you would, you aren't a TE.

        There was certainly no human death before the fall, Adam sinned so death came to all men. There is no problem with the genealogies.
        There certainly is a problem. The genealogies can only be stretched so far. Humans existed far longer than 6,000-10,000 years ago. Do you, like Hugh Ross* accept the "soulless pre-Adamite hominids"?
        Oh, and since the animals were originally said to be vegetarian, there wouldn't be any animal death for them before Adam either. However, we have evidence of carnivorous activity long before humans even show up.

        Genesis 1:29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

        The same phrasing is used to repeal the plant only diet for Noah.

        Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

        Obviously the same diet was being proclaimed for both man and animals.

        Then there's the part in Genesis where it says that there was no rain up until after God created man, but the fossil evidence supposedly tells a different story.

        Genesis 2:6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

        Is contradicted by this. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...th-atmosphere/

        I prefer to trust what God has revealed about what He created.

        *I remember you saying that you had a similar interpretation to him.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          There certainly is a problem. The genealogies can only be stretched so far.
          In my mind that is not a problem since the term father can refer to long past predecessors. Jesus is referred to as the Son of David.

          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          Humans existed far longer than 6,000-10,000 years ago. Do you, like Hugh Ross* accept the "soulless pre-Adamite hominids"?
          I believe humans have been around since Adam - around 150,000 years ago or so. The whole question of soulless hominids is a non issue. We have on earth today soulless hominids. So what? I believe that the so-called pre humans were just the same sort of animals we have a few of left today in the hominid category, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

          That whole soulless hominid thing was not Hugh Ross, but AIG trying to make him look bad. I do not think Christians should be attacking one another like that.

          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          Oh, and since the animals were originally said to be vegetarian, there wouldn't be any animal death for them before Adam either. However, we have evidence of carnivorous activity long before humans even show up.
          There is a lot of stuff that is subject to interpretation. I do not deny that there are questions that I do not have the answer to.

          I do see things in a way similar to Ross, I think I did say that. I see the creation as a revelation of the creator. What we can learn about the creation is true and valuable. Can we interpret creation inaccurately? Sure, but we can also interpret scripture inaccurately. I have shared what I believe, but again I do not see the age of the earth as being spiritually significant.

          I trust God, not my ability to understand everything. But I will still attempt to understand.

          I am not willing to go through the effort of arguing about the age of the earth. It just is not worth the effort to me. I struggled with that for a long time and now put it behind me.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            In my mind that is not a problem since the term father can refer to long past predecessors. Jesus is referred to as the Son of David.
            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. So does Jude.

            Jude 1:14
            Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

            Jude obviously didn't see any gaps in the Genesis genealogies.

            I believe humans have been around since Adam - around 150,000 years ago or so. The whole question of soulless hominids is a non issue. We have on earth today soulless hominids. So what? I believe that the so-called pre humans were just the same sort of animals we have a few of left today in the hominid category, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.
            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.

            That whole soulless hominid thing was not Hugh Ross, but AIG trying to make him look bad. I do not think Christians should be attacking one another like that.
            It's on the Reasons to Believe website. So, no, it's not an attack. http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/hominids

            There is a lot of stuff that is subject to interpretation. I do not deny that there are questions that I do not have the answer to.
            It's the same phrase applied to both, why should we even think that it means something different? That's right, there's not.

            I do see things in a way similar to Ross, I think I did say that. I see the creation as a revelation of the creator. What we can learn about the creation is true and valuable. Can we interpret creation inaccurately? Sure, but we can also interpret scripture inaccurately. I have shared what I believe, but again I do not see the age of the earth as being spiritually significant.
            I understand that, just don't get close to the kenotic heresy like Ross did. William Lane Craig, an old earther talks about it here. http://www.ldolphin.org/craig/index.html

            I trust God, not my ability to understand everything. But I will still attempt to understand.
            Then why not trust His words in one of the clearest parts of the Bible?

            I am not willing to go through the effort of arguing about the age of the earth. It just is not worth the effort to me. I struggled with that for a long time and now put it behind me.
            I understand what you are saying. However, unlike you, I feel that this is an important issue. Someone's views of Genesis 1-11 is going to color how they see the rest of the Bible. Genesis is heavily used in the NT, especially Genesis 1-11. The very need for the Resurrection is spelled out in Genesis. I don't think believing TE, or OEC is a salvation issue, but I still think it important.

            Comment


            • #21
              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.
              "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.

                    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, 12:07 AM.
                    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        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.)

                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        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; 01-24-2014, 06:21 PM.
                        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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 unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . 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 KJV

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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            . . . son of . . . can skip many generations. Many generations.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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).

                              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.

                              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.


                              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.


                              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?


                              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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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; 06-04-2014, 06:33 PM. Reason: p.s.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X