6 Days Of 15 Billion Years?

[aspen]

If God wants all people to be saved, He would not try to trick people with scientific evidence for an old Earth. I believe that the revelation to Moses of the Creation story took 7 days to reveal. What really worries me is placing the requirement of believing in a young Earth on people who are scientifically minded - it is asking people to shut of their brains and accept Christianity or believe their senses and reject Christianity.

 

[bud02]

If God wants all people to be saved, He would not try to trick people with scientific evidence for an old Earth. I believe that the revelation to Moses of the Creation story took 7 days to reveal. What really worries me is placing the requirement of believing in a young Earth on people who are scientifically minded - it is asking people to shut of their brains and accept Christianity or believe their senses and reject Christianity.

Who is tricking who? Did you read my last statement in my last post?
My point in all of this is you have to keep it in perspective.
Including the OP I made on this thread. 6 days or 15 billion years?

Are we to be uninformed of the world and heavens around us? 2 Tim 1:7 sound mind just how do you live in a fallen word without a sound mind? Never leave your house and ignore what the world is doing. If your afraid of confronting the world your useless to God. May be you missed the quotes from God to Job, all that talk about looking at the world and heavens around you Job and understand its your God that placed every single piece called it in to being.

What really worries me is placing the requirement of believing in a young Earth on people who are scientifically minded

What really bothers me is its clear from this statement you never read the opening post. So you go to watchman's camp. Self imposed ignorance, commenting about a subject you never bothered to read. Or you just don't understand it? FYI its not about a young earth, and you should clue your priest in on this statement. "people who are scientifically minded" Galileo and a geocentric universe ring any bells?

If I compare these two statements.
If God wants all people to be saved, He would not try to trick people with scientific evidence for an old Earth.
What really worries me is placing the requirement of believing in a young Earth on people who are scientifically minded

So which is it? it appears your suffering from a case of keep my cake and eat it to.
So which is it? young, old, or does your relative perspective effect time? Its not a trick, this science is used every time someone uses a GPS system. If we didn' account for the different clock speeds "clocks on earth vs clocks in orbit" the GPS system would be hopelessly inaccurate. In a nut shell times runns at different speeds bepending on your location. Relativity ever here of it?

 

[242006]

I think thats the case a lot of the time,
If by your own admission you did not read the information you replied to, where does that leave your reply? uninformed by choice?
Thanks just the same I've seen worse, and now that Hammerstone has given his definition about the word ignorant be careful how you use it, you may be describing yourself.

ignorance
ig·no·rance (

g

n

r-

ns)n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Your prior post was not relevant to the Bible timeline that I laid out which correlates exactly with science. My post was correct. Hence, it was unnecessary to read your post at all.

Having never read something how do you know its not biblical?

Of course, I would not know if you matched the correct interpretation that I laid out; however, you have previously demonstrated your Bible illiteracy regarding the first age elsewhere. So, there is a high probability that you were incorrect in your prior post as well.

Could we use the word ignorant in this case as well? Maybe even ignorant by choice.

Well, if I wrote that you were not correct without reading your post, that would be an ignorant thing to do. However, my original post in this topic makes no mention of your, or anyone's, post. I only then replied to your post, which criticized me for not reading your post. Unless you agreed with my presentation, you would be incorrect. So, as usual, you are playing the part of the false accuser.

BTW I have read both threads about the 3 earth ages. And followed some links from Paul and Hammerstone. I will say that Hammerstone has a much better presentation and supporting verses than the others I read. My guess is that he keeps this information in its proper perspective, not alowing it to effect the clear context of scripture but at the same time not closing the door on the possibility of further knowledge or continued learning. I give a place to Bullinger, Witness of the Stars. The Great Pyramids gospel in stone, and the lost 10 tribes. But I don't let them dictate what the bible says. We live I hope in the time of revelation which means unveiling as this takes place I feel I am properly positioned to further understand these things. I hope I have made some sense.

If Hammerstone agreed with me, then he is correct. Otherwise, he is incorrect. I have not read any of his writings on the topic. The Bible clearly states that there was a prior age.

Do you know the relation ship to celebrating Jesus birth on Dec 25 is? Of course Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25 but an other god was worshiped. The interesting part is that on the winter solas the sun appears to stop its decent on the southern horizon "to the naked eye" but on the 3rd day it begins it accent marking the point that the days begin being longer. So a man sitting in his home watching the shadow on the wall every day this shadow would appear to stop for three days then reverse direction. Symbolic, yes, but is there a connection between Jesus lying in a tomb for 3 days and on the 3rd day arose. Perhaps if you read Palms

This is not on topic. My only comment is that the best evidence is that Jesus was conceived on Dec. 25. It is another topic for another time.

My point in all of this is you have to keep it in perspective.
Including the OP I made on this thread. 6 days or 15 billion years?

I have kept it in proper perspective -- the 6 days represent 6,000 years of time in the reformation of the earth for this second age. The billions of years before that represent the first age.

 

[bud02]

Then lets just close the drawer on our extra credit paper work and be on to the task at hand.

 

[aspen]

Who is tricking who? Did you read my last statement in my last post?
My point in all of this is you have to keep it in perspective.
Including the OP I made on this thread. 6 days or 15 billion years?

Are we to be uninformed of the world and heavens around us? 2 Tim 1:7 sound mind just how do you live in a fallen word without a sound mind? Never leave your house and ignore what the world is doing. If your afraid of confronting the world your useless to God. May be you missed the quotes from God to Job, all that talk about looking at the world and heavens around you Job and understand its your God that placed every single piece called it in to being.



What really bothers me is its clear from this statement you never read the opening post. So you go to watchman's camp. Self imposed ignorance, commenting about a subject you never bothered to read. Or you just don't understand it? FYI its not about a young earth, and you should clue your priest in on this statement. "people who are scientifically minded" Galileo and a geocentric universe ring any bells?

If I compare these two statements.
If God wants all people to be saved, He would not try to trick people with scientific evidence for an old Earth.
What really worries me is placing the requirement of believing in a young Earth on people who are scientifically minded

So which is it? it appears your suffering from a case of keep my cake and eat it to.
So which is it? young, old, or does your relative perspective effect time? Its not a trick, this science is used every time someone uses a GPS system. If we didn' account for the different clock speeds "clocks on earth vs clocks in orbit" the GPS system would be hopelessly inaccurate. In a nut shell times runns at different speeds bepending on your location. Relativity ever here of it?

You are right, I didn't read you initial post. I simply gave my opinion - and your comment was so rude, I am not very motivated to go read now, either. Is this how you witness Christ? By telling people that they are self imposing ignorance? Or how people should clue in the clergy - nice

 

[bud02]

You are right, I didn't read you initial post. I simply gave my opinion - and your comment was so rude, I am not very motivated to go read now, either. Is this how you witness Christ? By telling people that they are self imposing ignorance? Or how people should clue in the clergy - nice

And I simply responded to it. What do you expect, just let you step in and cast doubt on my post with out ever reading the context. Sounds to me like you were simply disagreeing with me personally. The topic is of no importance, as you said, I didn't read it. How rude of you.

 

[242006]

Then lets just close the drawer on our extra credit paper work and be on to the task at hand.

Well, I have already given the answer. You either agree with it or you are a scorner of the Word of Truth.

 

[bud02]

Well, I have already given the answer. You either agree with it or you are a scorner of the Word of Truth.

Lets agree to disagree, you can call it what you like.

 

[242006]

Lets agree to disagree, you can call it what you like.

Let's agree that your rudeness resulted from the fact that neither Aspen or I read your OP.

 

[veteran]

I have yet to see anyone who believes Genesis 1 is about an original 6 day creation stay within the "proper perspective" of the Genesis 1:1-9 Scripture itself.

If the Genesis 1:1-10 Scripture is literally followed, which is a requirement since the subject is about creation, there's no way it can support a creation of the earth past Genesis 1:1. That is, not without leaving the Scripture as written to bring men's traditions into it.

Bishop Ussher in his 17th century work The History Of The Word could only go back to 4004 B.C. for the time of Adam in God's Garden (using Biblical genealogy of begats from Christ's birth backwards). That is one of the major origins of the 6,000 year old earth theory.

That Genesis 1 reveals a prior creation, with God destroying it with a flood because something caused it to go into vanity is also difficult to miss when Genesis 1 is followed in the Hebrew. E.W. Bullinger's Hebrew scholarship proof of a prior earth which God destroyed was accurate in that, just as many other Christian scholars in the Hebrew have been.

It's been Church traditions of men that choose whether or not to heed what those Christian scholars covered from the Hebrew of Genesis 1 about a prior earth. And those Christian scholars like Bullinger, Barnes, etc., simply chose to stick literally to the Hebrew, even while some scholars like Jamieson and Fausset chose not to admit a prior earth, but still covered how the Hebrew does point to the idea of a prior earth.

Even the scholars Keil and Delitzsch used the Hebrew definitions of the earth being in a waste and ruin state at Gen.1:2 while also applying ideas of the earth being in a nothingness state, which shows they made a contradiction, since God said in Isaiah 45:18 He did not create the earth in that waste and ruin state. That shows Kiel and Delitzsch simply chose to follow tradition instead of staying literally in the Hebrew.

What does it mean when even a Christian scholar of the Hebrew sees the Genesis 1 Scripture pointing to a prior earth, but still chooses not to heed it? It shows they favored men's traditions instead. And no doubt in the days of Kiel and Delitzsch, the urge to follow tradition was very strongly suggested.

The same kind of following tradition problem happenned with the KJV translators adding the word Easter in Acts 12:4, when the manuscript word is actually 'pascha' (passover) and they correctly translated it to passover in all other NT cases. They were following a Christian tradition of celebrating Easter as the time of our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection, when it actually fit the OT passover timing to a tee.

I am not pushing an agenda when I say all this. Each believer must decide for theirself on this matter of interpreting Genesis 1 as including a message about a prior earth, but not according to propagandists that do have an agenda against it.

 

[bud02]

In no way did I post this book review as being on the same foundation as scripture. The Author himself says in the first paragraph.

Quote;Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators’ description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option.

What is presented is the result of using the latest scientific knowledge and comparing it to Gen. That is all. I find it a valuable tool when sharing with people that use science to disprove biblical teaching when more often than not they want to talk about Gen. When understood you see that its posible from the origin or expansion of the universe only 6 days have passed but to us and nature it looks like 15 billion years. Nomad posted a great link to a 6000 year old earth site teaching. It very informative, they themselves understand the time concept. http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Now If someone was touched by the Spirit and moved into the light by understanding what science indicates as presented by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, who are we to judge.
It these types of differences that divide the body of Christ. It is simply an observation not the gospel. John 21:21-22

 

[aspen]

And I simply responded to it. What do you expect, just let you step in and cast doubt on my post with out ever reading the context. Sounds to me like you were simply disagreeing with me personally. The topic is of no importance, as you said, I didn't read it. How rude of you.

I apologize for being rude.

 

[bud02]

I apologize for being rude.

I have forgiven you long before today. I forgave you at every trespass I hope you accept mine as well.

 

[Andrey son of Lion]

The Almighty God has enough of force to create everything in one minute or less. But He created for a long time - even six days. I think He was feeling a pleasure creating the world, so He was creating so long - six days. You should know, that in sinless world every process went more faster comparing with processes in the world after the Fall of men. And processes in those six days were fasted by Divine Force. So we cannot definite now how something of processes were lasting before the Fall of men.

 

[Stefcui]

There are many ways to age the earth and the universe… Science uses only the methods that support their hypothesis of an old earth/universe. Science is the observation of nature with theories to explain what is observed. Very few of these theories can be proven.

Radiometric dating, which examines the half-live’s of decaying atoms, focuses primarily on Uranium-lead isotopes. The premise is that the change of uranium into lead takes 4.5 billion years for each half-life. There can be 10 or more half-lives, so the full transfer of uranium into lead will take 45 billion years. This is the theory. This theory is presented because it supports the idea of evolution.

Through the exact same procedure (the decay of Uranium), an alpha decay will produce hydrogen atoms. The change of uranium into hydrogen takes only thousands of years; and because hydrogen is a gas, you cannot know for certain exactly how much hydrogen has escaped.

There are multiple ways to determine the age of the earth. Helium in the Atmosphere demonstrates thousands of years, not billions. Salt in the ocean demonstrates thousands of years, not billions. Space dust and sediment demonstrates thousands of years, not billions. Ocean floor ages demonstrate thousands of years, not billions. The earth's magnetic field demonstrates thousands of years, not billions.

The universe also demonstrates many different young ages. The most complex issues relate to the speed of light, and how long it takes for light to reach earth from its distant location. It has been clearly demonstrated, though, that time acts differently in different locations. This is true on earth, and it is also true in the universe. Stephen Hawking’s and Albert Einstein both predicted that this would be the case, and it is. For a Christian perspective on this, read Dr Russell Humphries book, Starlight and Time. (Also available on a video below)

I am personally not convinced in a literal six day creation. I think each creative day lasts for a thousand years, as Peter said… “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). The sediment in the Grand Canyon, and elsewhere, appears to have been formed prior to the flood, not at the flood (as many creationists teach). There are NO land animal fossils found in the sediment of the Canyon until you get up close to the top. The same is true at Australia’s Carnarvon Gorge. Hundreds of meters of sediment (with marine fossils) were not placed there in one day. This suggestion makes it impossible for scientists to take genesis seriously. I don’t believe the genesis account requires us to believe in a literal six day creation. In genesis 2:1 it says that the heavens and the earth were created in ONE DAY. This is obviously symbolic, and so too were the creative days symbolic. They were likely, as Peter said, 1000 years each day.


God Bless
Steve

 

[veteran]

There are many ways to age the earth and the universe… Science uses only the methods that support their hypothesis of an old earth/universe. Science is the observation of nature with theories to explain what is observed. Very few of these theories can be proven.

Radiometric dating, which examines the half-live’s of decaying atoms, focuses primarily on Uranium-lead isotopes. The premise is that the change of uranium into lead takes 4.5 billion years for each half-life. There can be 10 or more half-lives, so the full transfer of uranium into lead will take 45 billion years. This is the theory. This theory is presented because it supports the idea of evolution.

Through the exact same procedure (the decay of Uranium), an alpha decay will produce hydrogen atoms. The change of uranium into hydrogen takes only thousands of years; and because hydrogen is a gas, you cannot know for certain exactly how much hydrogen has escaped.

There are multiple ways to determine the age of the earth. Helium in the Atmosphere demonstrates thousands of years, not billions. Salt in the ocean demonstrates thousands of years, not billions. Space dust and sediment demonstrates thousands of years, not billions. Ocean floor ages demonstrate thousands of years, not billions. The earth's magnetic field demonstrates thousands of years, not billions.

The universe also demonstrates many different young ages. The most complex issues relate to the speed of light, and how long it takes for light to reach earth from its distant location. It has been clearly demonstrated, though, that time acts differently in different locations. This is true on earth, and it is also true in the universe. Stephen Hawking’s and Albert Einstein both predicted that this would be the case, and it is. For a Christian perspective on this, read Dr Russell Humphries book, Starlight and Time. (Also available on a video below)

I am personally not convinced in a literal six day creation. I think each creative day lasts for a thousand years, as Peter said… “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). The sediment in the Grand Canyon, and elsewhere, appears to have been formed prior to the flood, not at the flood (as many creationists teach). There are NO land animal fossils found in the sediment of the Canyon until you get up close to the top. The same is true at Australia’s Carnarvon Gorge. Hundreds of meters of sediment (with marine fossils) were not placed there in one day. This suggestion makes it impossible for scientists to take genesis seriously. I don’t believe the genesis account requires us to believe in a literal six day creation. In genesis 2:1 it says that the heavens and the earth were created in ONE DAY. This is obviously symbolic, and so too were the creative days symbolic. They were likely, as Peter said, 1000 years each day.


God Bless
Steve

Problem though, is that Genesis 1 actually declares God's original creation of the earth as being very ancient, which scientific evidence does support. There is no specific mention of creation of the earth itself past Gen.1:1. The appearing of the land of earth by God moving the waters around upon it was not a creation of earth event. Instead, it was an event of moving those waters around that were upon an already... created earth that was under those waters. The Gen.1:2 event describes a flood of waters upon an already existing earth.

 

[Stefcui]

Problem though is that Genesis 1 actually declares God's original creation of the earth as being very ancient, which scientific evidence does support.

Yours is an opinion and an interpretation that is not widely shared in Christian circles. Science believes in an old age for earth because it is the only alternative to creation.

According to your belief, what came first… dry land or water? Science claims that dry land came first, but this is not what Genesis 1:1-2 says. Science believes the earth came about because of meteorites smashing into each other, eventually forming the mass we now have. The moon was made because a giant meteorite hit into the earth, and a chunk of earth broke off and formed the moon. This is the conventional wisdom of science!

Water is (apparently) a by-product of the elements fusing by atomic bonding. According to the table of elements, hydrogen came first, and then helium. Hydrogen is an ingredient of water. All of the base elements, like iron, gold, uranium, etc., came much after the development of water, which is produced by two gases; hydrogen and oxygen. Iron is the element which makes up the core of the earth, according to science.

Which do you say came first on earth… water or iron? Did dry land come first, or water? And, was the first dry land made out of Basalt or Granite?

Steve

 

[sashka]

There is a simple interpretation. KJV states after each day of creation... the first day, the second day, and so on. It does not say the first billion years... lol. Sorry folks but the logic is very simple.

 

[tomwebster]

There is a simple interpretation. KJV states after each day of creation... the first day, the second day, and so on. It does not say the first billion years... lol. Sorry folks but the logic is very simple.

2Pe 3:8

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

...the first day (1000 years), the second day (1000 years) , and so on. = 7000 years very simple!

 

[sashka]

2Pe 3:8

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

...the first day (1000 years), the second day (1000 years) , and so on. = 7000 years very simple!

That passage has a whole different meaning... it does not actually relate to actualy days... you are mixing the context...