Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The question was to prove the age from scriptures. There is also a problem here because young creationists also claim to have done what you have done and ended up with a few thousand years old so who to believe I think I will go with God. If you had taken some time to check up on the links you might have seen the vast discoveries supporting a young universe.The problem here is I have taken the geological record and said it is millions of years old. The funny thing is that most people think that the geological record contradicts the Bible but it absolutely does not. See people have put this evil vale on science because if there is an old earth there is evolution. But that is not true at all. Science is good it has given us many things and only contradicts the Bible when it is used incorrectly.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/iceage.aspActually about 12, 000 years ago there was an ice age so drastic that the oceans froze. Now what could have caused such a thing??? No sun perhaps. Here is a link that could answer some of your questions concerning the ice age.
Your ideas seem to imply it. Also if you believe in Noah’s flood that it covered the entire planet as the bible says then there is a problem with your module of an old earth as a flood that covers the entire planet is prove beyond doubt for the fossil records which is why old earth creationist don’t believe it was global.I never said I did not believe in Noah's flood and never said that he did a partial re-creation. He re-created the earth because it was "without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
True He did not but He mentions good at various stages of creation and then say very good when it was all done my point is why call a planet that is filled with death good.God does not mention that "it is good" in Genesis 1:1. He did not create from destruction, the ingredients were already there because he created them long ago. He simply repaired everything.
So you are saying God created man and put him in a planet filled with death what's more in a planet where a fallen being (Satan) already exists that makes no sense. Think about it Jesus said would you give your child a stone or serpent and says if an evil person would give good things to their children how much more of God, No one would take their child and dump them in a place filled with death why then would GodFurthermore, you’re right that death was already there on the earth before Adam and Eve. Eve was not the original sin Satan was the original sin that is why there is so much death in the geological record.
Where did the darkness come from. You mean to tell me the blackness of space is because of sin not so God himself said he creates the Darkness Isa 45:7 the darkness has nothing to do with sin. Genesis 1:1 is in my opinion a reference to space which is the second heaven while the final heaven was introduced in Gen 1:8 that is the sky. Yes Gen 1:2 describes the state of the earth how it was not how it became also does it make sense if from verse 3 0f Genesis God describes the creation in detail for him to in one verse tell another historyYou are once more reading into the text we don't know when exactly Satan sinned and there many Genesis 2:4consider this....In Genesis 1:2 all of these things are present..1.) the Earth, 2.) waters, 3.) the "deep," and 4.) darknessNow God said in Genesis 1:1 that he created the heaven and earth....not heaven(s). As we know there are 3 heavens. He did not originally create 3 just 1. Darkness is already present because Satan had already sinned against God. Genesis 1:2 describes the CONDITION of the Earth at a point in time AFTER the "heaven and earth" were first created. Genesis 1:3 is the beginning of a seven day restoration process. More precisely, it was the Divine work of making a new GENERATION of the "heavens and earth":
the source word here in the Hebrew is history however in the king James era old English was used hence generations is used here if you check the various versions you will notice generations isn’t used. Here are a few versions(Amplified) This is the history of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens—(NIV) This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-Also if you consider that more the one subject is being explained it makes sense to say generations. I.e. the earth generation /history/ account (2) the second heaven (space) and the final created heaven the sky that is 3 certainly make good sense to say generations.These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Aren’t you contradicting yourself you are the one who seems to believe He went poof created everything and poof it was all in ruins all in one verse I think it makes more sense that verse one was God laying the foundation and then working on from there after He tells us how the foundation was i.e. without form, and void; and dark.And after seeing that all these things are already present, can we realistically be expected to accept the Young Earth Creationist's argument? Are we to believe that God went "poof" and made the planet Earth, outer space, time, and lots of water, all at the very beginning of the very first day, without a single sentence outlining this complex work? Especially since God then only says, "let there be light" and calls it a day? That seems somewhat out of character in light of the fact that God then spends another five full working days afterward on just the surface features with the Bible fully documenting the work in great detail. Did Moses sleep through that part of the lecture? I don't think so.
There is no where in the bible saying the seven days were a reconstruction. I would ask you a question again if you never heard a scientist say the earth was billions of years old would you from studying the scriptures ever come about such an idea or would you believe the earth was very old if there was no science in existence? I think to a great deal your reading of the Genesis creation is very well based on evolution. [/QUOTE]The only common sense, logical, and truly Biblical conclusion that these things collectively tell us is that the seven days of Genesis were a reconstruction from the ruins of what was already there. It was a new "generation" of all things. The Word makes a statement of fact on the Earth's ruined condition, and then proceeds to tell us how God regenerated all things. That is the simplicity and truth of the narrative. Man has been guilty of reading his own understanding into the meaning of Genesis, instead of just taking God at His word.