|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 22, 2013 0:57:56 GMT 10
I don't believe the world is 6,000 years old. -What about me?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 28, 2013 10:01:02 GMT 10
How and when do you believe it was created
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 28, 2013 10:39:56 GMT 10
Approx. 15 billion (earth)years ago. (But from the center of the universe, only a week has passed.)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 28, 2013 10:50:59 GMT 10
Hmm, the scientific consensus is about 4.54 Billion years ago. The oldest star clusters are about 12 to 15 billion years old.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 28, 2013 11:05:49 GMT 10
The question was about the age of the Earth Dibley. Of course, the evidence from the Bible puts the age of the Earth at about 6,000 years. 4.5 billion years, I'm NOT a young earth creationist. And the Bible doesn't specify a 6,000 year time frame, that is exegetical.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 28, 2013 11:19:41 GMT 10
Yeah, because an omnipotent deity would be limited by something like that.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 28, 2013 13:17:32 GMT 10
How does anybody know that?
Too many contradictions to mention!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 29, 2013 2:27:18 GMT 10
Hey Dibley, you have stated that the age of the Earth and the age of stars is different in your view. You have a problem - the age difference is reversed in the Bible and the age difference is only a few days, not billions of years! Your Bible tells you that the Earth was in orbit around ... what? The Sun was "placed" later on? An object in orbit around something not there? I thought you were advocating the "laws" of gravity very recently Dibley? What happened to that stance? Not to mention that the heavy elements are formed by stars! No heavy elements, no Earth. The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first "day", according to Genesis 1:1 Both science and the Bible confirm the earth was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases it would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, "darkness was over the surface of the deep." God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness" (Genesis 1:4). It is clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5). On day 4 the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long. So to answer your question, no the stars were not created after the earth.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 29, 2013 9:05:29 GMT 10
How does anybody know that? Too many contradictions to mention! The Bible has contradictory accounts of when the stars were created. The first creation story in Genesis says that the stars were created on the fourth day, the day after the earth was created. Job, however, says that at the time the corner stone of the earth was laid, the stars already existed. So when exactly did God create the stars: before or after God created the earth? Genesis Account of God Creating the Stars
Genesis 1:9-13; 16-19: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. ...And the evening and the morning were the third day. ... He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Job Account of God Creating the StarsJob 38:4-7: Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Which story of when God created the stars is supposed to be correct? These Bible verses are contradictory because they can't both be true: either God created at least some stars first then the earth, or God created the earth first then all the stars. Is this a legitimate Bible contradiction or can the two Bible accounts of when the stars were created be harmonized? If you think you can resolve this Bible contradiction, explain how — but your solution cannot add anything new that's not already in the stories and cannot leave out any details that the Bible provides. atheism.about.com/od/Bible-Contradictions-Genesis/a/Contradiction-When-God-Create-Stars.htm
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 29, 2013 9:57:25 GMT 10
I've already addressed this in my previous post. Please read carefully. And don't complain about religious people blindly following doctrine, if you are going to jump onto atheist websites for your opinion. "freethinker".
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 29, 2013 15:15:41 GMT 10
I started by saying there were many contradictions. Nothing you stated has proved this as incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 30, 2013 2:26:54 GMT 10
I started by saying there were many contradictions. Nothing you stated has proved this as incorrect. Unless you are more specific, I'm not obligated to say anything in regard to that; you are just stating an opinion. I know where this is going: I'm supposed to say "It ain't so", then you are going to Google type in Bible Contradictions, then C&P something from Infidels.org (or something similar) I am going to give a response that shoots down your first 10 objections, wash-rinse-repeat until I get tired of beating a dead horse.. And the only thing that you will end up proving is, you are an armchair 'Google' expert. Slarti, I've seen all kinds of 'alleged' contradictions before, but most of these secular websites haven't done their homework. Please for the sake of all of us, don't reproduce their ignorance here. Most legal experts know there are eight rules of interpretation, please scrutinize using these, instead of regurgitating the errors of amateurs. 1. Rule of Definition.Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings. 2. Rule of Usage.Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written? 3. Rule of Context.Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used. 4. Rule of Historical background.Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation. 5. Rule of Logic.Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise. 6. Rule of Precedent.Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent. 7. Rule of Unity.Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them. 8. Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 30, 2013 11:55:59 GMT 10
Pity about this board - it could be very interesting. The "Compass" of discussion boards. Dib for your info my "Compass" reference is to a Sunday night program on Australian public TV (ABC) with that name www.abc.net.au/compass/ The presenter is an Irish-Australian Catholic baby boomer named Geraldine Doogue who's had more face lifts and Botox insertions than you've had breakfasts. Geraldine is OK I suppose but she's an example of baby boomers clogging up the works who ought to retire and make room for the younger hotshots on the way up. There's a few like that and they hang around the corridors of the ABC like a fusty old aroma. It's kinda nice for old farts like me, but it does go some way towards explaining why the ABC is a complete turn off for anyone under age 60. Does the Canadian public broadcaster have that problem? But back to "Compass"! Some of the doco's that have been shown on Compass have been superb, and they do occasionally have outstanding discussion programs on topics like faith and the modern world. It isn't everyone's cup of tea but it can be quite good. There was a potential for the Religion Board to play a "Compass" role on NTB, but the problem is it's been overtaken by people with destructive agendas who post in bad faith. Pity, it could have been good.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 1, 2013 10:28:10 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 1, 2013 10:41:19 GMT 10
1.Rule of Definition. Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.You mean a day is a day? Define what you mean by a 'day'. It's obvious that time is relative. (A day on Mercury would be a lot shorter, than one on Earth.) In the same time would move much slower at source of the Big Bang, than something traveling rapidly away from it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 1, 2013 10:46:15 GMT 10
Evening and morning from WHERE?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 1, 2013 10:55:01 GMT 10
The Hebrew word translated "evening" also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word translated "morning" also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage. Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. The intended meaning of the word should be determined from the context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 12:59:12 GMT 10
Likewise I believe the Universe to be billions of years old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2013 9:42:53 GMT 10
I can see why you are a failed Christian Earl.
If you had the least knowledge of the debate you'd realise that the word day you refer to can also mean a long period of time.
In my experience failed Christians are usually the most bitter of people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2013 15:43:00 GMT 10
Earl Gay,
I can't really be bothered today to search for any credible explanation that would salve your tortured soul. You know perfectly well there is a wealth of evidence on this debate written by scholars who know a great deal more than you ever could. Even if I could present you evidence you wouldn't want to take it in as you've abandoned Christianity and you desperately need reassurance you've done the 'right thing.'
Ask God when you meet him.
In the meantime you can rant all you want a day means a day but you know deep down it doesn't and you want to raise as many objections to the Bible as you possibly can for self reassurance purposes.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 3, 2013 18:13:54 GMT 10
Earl Gay, I can't really be bothered today to search for any credible explanation that would salve your tortured soul. You know perfectly well there is a wealth of evidence on this debate written by scholars who know a great deal more than you ever could. Even if I could present you evidence you wouldn't want to take it in as you've abandoned Christianity and you desperately need reassurance you've done the 'right thing.' Ask God when you meet him. In the meantime you can rant all you want a day means a day but you know deep down it doesn't and you want to raise as many objections to the Bible as you possibly can for self reassurance purposes. Earl is Gay? You really make a lot of accusations! Btw - no-one has met God.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 3, 2013 19:24:44 GMT 10
If you ever get employed by the likes of Skippy and they say they're going to pay you on a daily rate - beware!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2013 14:36:21 GMT 10
Earl, You're Biblical Exegesis is shaky because you're not genuinely searching for the truth rather using a trial lawyers tactic of 'shepharding' ie trying to force someone into a corner. You're additionally showing a complete lack of scholarship here because you're not objectively reviewing your evidence. Why don't you review the interpretive work as summarised by Dr Hugh Ross, a leading Christian Evangelical who holds a doctorate in Astrophysics as well as experience in astrophysical research. Look at his writings on the age controversy - www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/date.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2013 14:57:56 GMT 10
From godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html4) Day (yôm) with a Number Hebrew scholars acknowledge the word translated “day” (yôm) has several literal meanings: daylight, day, time, moment, or long era of time. The question is which definition of yôm did the Genesis author intend? Biblical Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary–approximately 3,100 words compared to over 4,000,000 English words.43 In English, we have many words to describe a long period of time. However, biblical Hebrew has no word other than yôm to denote a long time-span.44 Some claim yôm attached to a number (i.e., ordinal, “first, second, third,” etc.) requires a 24-hour-day interpretation. However, Bible scholars dispute that. For example, noted Hebrew scholar Gleason L. Archer states the ordinal simply defines a symbolic unit of time and “serves as no real evidence for a literal 24 hour day concept on the part of the Biblical author.” Archer also points out that the days of creation do not bear a definite article in Hebrew (i.e., “the first day,” “the second day,” etc.). He states, “In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite... Thus they [the days of creation] are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”45 It should also be noted that there are instances in Scripture where yôm used with a number does not restrict its meaning to 24 hours. For example, Hosea 6:2 states: “He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day,” referring to Israel’s ultimate restoration some hundreds or thousands of years in the future. Zechariah 14:7, describing the Day of the Lord, contains yôm echad (translated “unique day”), which is identical to yôm echad of Genesis 1:5 (translated “one day”). The context of Zechariah 14:7-8 suggests yôm echad will be a period of time spanning at least one summer and one winter, obviously longer than a 24-hour calendar day. 5) Evening and Morning Young-earth creationists claim “day” (yôm) accompanied by the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning” indicates the creation days were normal 24-hour days. However, there is lack of unanimity on this point. For example, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states “These are not ordinary days bounded by minutes and hours, but days of God... The beginning of each act of creation is called morning, and the close of that specific divine act is called evening.”46 In biblical Hebrew, “evening” (‛ereb) has several meanings, including “sunset,” “night,” or “at the turn of evening”47 and conveys a “sense of gradual cessation or diminishing of activity.”48 “Morning” (bōqer) also has several meanings, including “the point of time at which night is changing to day... the end of night, daybreak, dawn”49 or “beginning of day”50 and conveys a sense of a “new starting of creative activity.”51 Thus, neither term restricts the meaning of “day” to a 24-hour period. Much of the confusion comes from the King James Version, which combines evening and morning together–“And the evening and the morning were the nth day.” As Collins notes, “Grammatically, the AV [Authorized King James Version] compresses the two events into a sum, namely, the evening plus the morning were a day.”52 This is incorrect. A more accurate translation is found in the NASB and ESV: “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.” Note the time period from “evening” to “morning” brackets only the night. As Collins states: “This means that any effort to find this as defining [24-hour] days runs counter to the author’s [Moses] own presentation.”53 That “evening and morning” can be used to represent long periods of time is evident in Psalm 90, which is attributed to Moses, the writer of Genesis. In the Psalm, “morning” defines the beginning of life and “evening” the end of life. Thus, “morning and evening” brackets the entire human lifespan. As Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer states, “Concerning the recurring [evening and morning] formula at the end of each creative day... there were definite and distinct stages in God’s creational procedure... it serves as no real evidence for a literal twenty-four-hour day concept on the part of the biblical author.”54 According to Professor Nathan Aviezer of Bar-IlanUniversityin Israel, this is consistent with the way early Talmud scholars approached Genesis 1. He states, “A statement must be made at the outset about biblical chronology of the six days of creation. Any attempt to correlate the biblical text with scientific knowledge must necessarily understand the term ‘day’ to mean a phase or a period in the development of the world, rather than a time interval of twenty-four hours...”55
So as you can see Earl, trying to restrict the term to 24 hours is neither accurate nor consistent. But why do I suspect you already know that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2013 15:21:56 GMT 10
False dichotomy, but keep trying Earl. And you're not particulary effective in 'Shepharding.' Keep trying.
'A day is a day.' I prefer the scholarship of those who have really studied the issue and know what they are talking about rather than your 'opinion' and false dichotomies.
|
|