Who Believe the Earth is 6000 Years Old???

[Paraprakrti]

Any takers regarding what I said on 2 Peter 3:8?

 

[fantome profane]

That's just one way of measuring the age of the earth.

Many also believe the different layers of the earth's crust gives us a definite age of the earth.

For instance if we look at the different sedimentary deposits seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, we see that there are several layers that seem to paint an historical picture of the age of the earth, but on closer inspection we see that these are just loosely deposited bits of sandstone and other debri, deposited by a world wide flood, further evidences of an event in the Bible. When these waters receded they eroded these loosely deposited materials and formed what we now know as the Grand Canyon.

The problem here is that geologists can tell what kind of formations are created by flooding, and the grand canyon is just not one of them. If a flood had have eroded sandstone and other loose material it would have left rounded sloping walls. Try an experiment yourself (well perhaps not during the winter but maybe sometime this summer). Find a pile of dirt (or make a pile yourself) and dump a bucket of water on it. You will observe well rounded erosion, sloping hills, shallow depressions etc. Now take a similar pile of dirt and rig something to drip water on it slowly. Now you will observe steep walls and deep depressions.

Consult any reputable geologist and they will tell you that it is simply not possible for any formation like the grand canyon to be the result of a catastrophic flood.

Another question you might ask yourself is how could the force of the water be so great as to carve out this massive area, yet also be gentle enough to leave dinosaur tracks on the bottom?

And lastly what do you make of the radioactive dating methods that date some of the rocks found at the bottom of the grand canyon to over 2000 million years old? I asked this question recently in a thread concerning dinosaurs and the most intelligent response I could get had something to do with pink unicorns.

Sources:

U.S. National Park Service
Talk Origins Archive
A Young Grand Canyon?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I've never understood why people take the bible as truth or being accurate. from my understanding the Nicea Council compiled that book and it was dubbed "Bible." And when I say compiled I mean they left out a lot of scrolls they felt were not important enough to incluce.

From my understanding the sciptures were on scrolls and brought out in the temples read from and studied. But again, these were scriptures written by the hands of men.

Say what you want.."They were inspired by God"...whatever....The fact is all you have is some one elses word as to their validity.

Now i'm not saying science is the be all to end all but i get so tired of this science vs. religion stuff. the fact is science has put us on course to ask and answer some tuff questions. Science is silent as to stating that religion is wrong. scientist, to my knowledge, stay away from fights like this. scientist disagree with other scientist but not with religious people.

this "the earth and life was created in 6...7,000...13,000 years" is not true at all. I've said this plenty of times and i've seen it posted her before...Genesis is not the beginning of it ALL.... the word that is mis-translated is Bara****h...which means recontruction and is derived from the word (Bara) which mean recontruct.

If scientist are wrong when using their dating methods to determine the age of something then people need to show how these methods are completely WRONG.....I have seen no attempt from the religious community to come forth with convincing evidence that contridicts the science.

some are trying to use the bible for evidence but the problem with this, if i've heard some of you correctly, is that the bible should not be taken literal. Yes that's a problem. Then we are told that it's has to be interprated correctly in order to understand what it means. this is nonsense. to me the science is quite clear.

Please if you have convincing evidence that current scientific methods are inaccurate please share them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I loathe the day that hyper-fundies discovered the internet.

One day, long ago... the internet was pure.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

the word that is mis-translated is Bara****h...which means recontruction and is derived from the word (Bara) which mean recontruct.

Here's the entry for the word from a good friend (BDB):

tyviare​

, tyvire Dt 1113: sf. Atyviare, ^t.yvi(are: — 1. what is first, beginning Is 4610; — 2. beginning, starting-point: time Gn 11; metaph.: r¢°šît µokmâ Ps 11110; — 3. first, best: r¢°šît °ônî first of my strength = firstborn Gn 493; r¢°šît gôyyim Nu 2420; r¢°šît kol-minµâ 1S 229; — 4. first-fruits: h¹r¢°šît offering of firstfruits Ne 1244, so Je 23. (pg 330)​

Here's English:​

ESV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.​

Here's the Greek translation from the LXX:​

LXT Genesis 1:1 evn avrch/| evpoi,hsen o` qeo.j to.n ouvrano.n kai. th.n gh/n​

Angellous' translation of the LXX: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and th earth."​

;

`#r<a'(h' taeîw> ~yIm:ßV'h; taeî ~yhi_l{a/ ar"äB' tyviÞarEB.​

​

WTT Genesis 1:1​

Finally, the ESV above reflects quite literally the Hebrew and the Grek translators, who knew Hebrew very well, also translated "Bara****h" as "beginning."​

I seriously doubt the argument for mistranslation in this case, even if the epistemology for "rashat" has anything to do with reconstruction (which I also doubt). ​

"Bara" isn't the root, anyway. The "B" is a propositional prefix meaning "in." The root "rashat" and defined above.​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Pet peeve: people who know nothing about the language arguing for a mistranslation.

Sheesh.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Pet peeve: people who know nothing about the langauge arguing for a mistranslation.

Sheesh.

We've seen it before, and we will see it again.

 

[Kcnorwood]

Prior to the flood conditions on earth were much different.

Picture this....

Prior to the flood the earth was not tilted on it's axis/or at least not as much as it is now, and there were no seasons or little change with each season....

There was also a much greater protective covering over the earth which caused a greenhouse affect....

Plants and animals flourished under these conditions, not to mention humans....

Job speaks of a large beast or the largest of the beasts known to him at that time...

Job 40: 15

15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

The bible ONLY speaks of a levathen
The word leviathan has become synonymous with any large aquatic monster or creature. In Modren Hewbrew it simply means "whale.
NOT dinosours get it right.




The word leviathan is only mentioned in the bible six times. All the times having been in the sea.

 

[XAAX]

Not me. didn't you though when you were a baptist preacher? maybe you could explain how you believed it and then debate yourself...:sw: :biglaugh:

I have never heard of that until recently...

 

[XAAX]

It's actually 6,000 for creation, then 1000 years of rest then we need to add 6.000 years from the time Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden until now....

So roughly 13,000 literal years since the first day of creation...

You actually believe this?? What on earth would cause you to believe this?

 

[FFH]

The bible ONLY speaks of a levathen
The word leviathan has become synonymous with any large aquatic monster or creature. In Modren Hewbrew it simply means "whale.
NOT dinosours get it right.

That's funny I've never heard of a fire breathing whale before...

Sounds more like a dragon to me, which would be more of the shape of a dinosaur not a whale of course..

The word leviathan is only mentioned in the bible six times. All the times having been in the sea.

I'm fully aware of this creature being in the sea, but don't think It wasn't limited to being in the sea...

 

[Kcnorwood]

I'm fully aware of this creature being in the sea, but I don't think it was limited to just being in the sea...

Sorry but your bible says it was a creature of the sea so I guess it must be true right?

 

[XAAX]

That's funny I've never heard of a fire breathing whale before...

Sounds more like a dragon to me, which would be more of the shape of a dinosaur not a whale of course..

I'm fully aware of this creature being in the sea, but don't think It wasn't limited to being in the sea...

FFH, what religion believes in this point of view?

 

[Bishka]

FFH, what religion believes in this point of view?

This is his own viewpoint on the subject. His religion does not reflect that thinking. (I'm only saying this because I happen to be of the same sect).

 

[XAAX]

Sorry but your bible says it was a creature of the sea so I guess it must be true right?

Are you questioning the bible Kcnorwood??? Don't make me get the hammer and nails out again... :cross: :biglaugh:

 

[XAAX]

This is his own viewpoint on the subject. His religion does not reflect that thinking. (I'm only saying this because I happen to be of the same sect).

OH No, not again...lol...this is not a mormon belief?? If not, why would one mormon believe this and not another??

 

[Feathers in Hair]

OH No, not again...lol...this is not a mormon belief?? If not, why would one mormon believe this and not another??

I don't know! I mean, seriously! All pagans believe the same thing! All UU's believe the same thing! Why on earth would Mormonism be any different?

 

[Bishka]

OH No, not again...lol...this is not a mormon belief?? If not, why would one mormon believe this and not another??

Why would you think we all have to be mindless robots? What gave you this idea? We have our own minds, we can think what we want about some things. In fact, considering many of the LDS population where I currently reside, I'm very liberal in my thinking.

Why would one atheist act differently then another? It's the same question just given a different group.

 

[FFH]

That makes two of us. *reminds self to bite tongue*

I'm amazed that so many LDS don't even understand or accept the 13,000 year old earth teaching. It is completely and Biblically accurate....

I guess most LDS think Adam just hung out in the garden of eden for a month or so, that being what let's see....30,000 years....

We need to look at the pattern set forth by God in scripture and then we can realize creation and the fall of Adam was no longer than 7,000 years and then began the beginning of another 7,000 years, we being in the beginning of the 6,000th year when Christ will rule and reign for the final 1,000 years...

Many think Christ has delayed his coming because we are well into the 6,000th year, and that very well may be and I need to look at the Jewish calendar again to see what year we may actually be in.

Are we really in the year 6,007 or how far off is our Gregorian calendar...some say up to 7 years off and other say possibly even more than that...

 

[Bishka]

I'm amazed that so many LDS don't even understand or accept the 13,000 year old earth teaching. It is completely and Biblically accurate....

I guess most LDS think Adam just hung out in the garden of eden for a month or so, that being what let's see....30,000 years....

We need to look at the pattern set forth by God in scripture and then we can realize creation and the fall of Adam was no longer than 7,000 years and then began the beginning of another 7,000 years, we being in the beginning of the 6,000th year when Christ will rule and reign for the final 1,000 years...

Many think Christ has delayed his coming because we are well into the 6,000th year, and that very well may be and I need to look at the Jewish calendar again to see what year we may actually be in.

Are we really in the year 6,007 or how far off is our Gregorian calendar...some say up to 7 years off and other say possibly even more than that...

If we can back this up by doctrine, most of us would be hapy to accept it.