[_ Old Earth _] Old Earth Vs. Literal Reading of the Bible.

[BobRyan]

Can we concentrate on one or perhaps two that support a particular estimate for the age of Earth derived from the Bible?

hmmm - ok...

Sedimentation rates of all major river deltas.

What about those Daniel 7 predictions, by the way, as you appeared to be advancing this as significant support for the reliability of the Bible? Just to remind you, my questions were:

Which are the four empires that are so ‘predicted’?

Answer; Babylon - Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and the split of Rome into ten divisions AND the fact that those divided entities would never again be able to reform into a single empire.

How are they identified as European?

Hint -- they are named in the case of the first three.

The last one is simply identified as the kingdom that came up after Greece.

Indeed, why should the ‘prediction’ refer to European empires at all? Why not Asian or American, for example?

You speak as someone who clearly has not read Daniel.

Indeed, how are these empires identified at all? What are the grounds for accepting such an identification?

Hint: they are named in the text.

Try this concept -- read the text before nay-saying it.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Can we concentrate on one or perhaps two that support a particular estimate for the age of Earth derived from the Bible?

hmmm - ok...

Sedimentation rates of all major river deltas.

Well, okay, go on then. Please show the science that tie these to a specific date for the creation of Earth derived from the Bible.

[quote:3u9xz5nm]
What about those Daniel 7 predictions, by the way, as you appeared to be advancing this as significant support for the reliability of the Bible? Just to remind you, my questions were:

Which are the four empires that are so ‘predicted’?

Answer; Babylon - Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and the split of Rome into ten divisions AND the fact that those divided entities would never again be able to reform into a single empire.[/quote:3u9xz5nm]
Which Babylonian empire is being referred to?

Which Greek empire is being referred to, assuming Grecia can confidently be associated with Greece? Do you mean the Athenian Empire? Or do you mean the Macedonian Empire, which was scarcely Greek, but certainly came after the Athenian Empire? Your argument seems based on a selective reading of history.

The Book of Daniel is variously attributed to the 6th-2nd Century BCE. 'Predicting' empires (Babylonian, Median and Athenian or Macedonian) that were either already or no longer in existence scarcely counts as a prediction.

What are the ten divisions into which the Roman Empire is supposed to have divided? When did this occur?

[quote:3u9xz5nm]
How are they identified as European?

Hint -- they are named in the case of the first three.[/quote:3u9xz5nm]
If you believe Babylon and Media to be European, you have a different understanding of the continents from mine.

The last one is simply identified as the kingdom that came up after Greece.

Is it not strange to you that the first three 'empires' are confidently identified by name, but the fourth isn't? Can you think why this might be? Given that the Roman Republic was founded in the 6th Century BCE, I would at least have expected a guess at the name at least as near the mark as Grecia is to Greece.

[quote:3u9xz5nm]
Indeed, why should the ‘prediction’ refer to European empires at all? Why not Asian or American, for example?

You speak as someone who clearly has not read Daniel.[/quote:3u9xz5nm]
Well, you see I just had difficulty recognizing Babylon and Media as European empires, which was your claim; as the fourth 'empire' is not named at all, I can see no particular reason to single Rome out rather than, say, any other kingdom that came 'after' the Greek 'empire'. I am also intrigued as to how you define the beginning and end of the kingdom of 'Grecia' and even how you can so certainly identify Grecia with Greece.

[quote:3u9xz5nm]
Indeed, how are these empires identified at all? What are the grounds for accepting such an identification?

Hint: they are named in the text.

Try this concept -- read the text before nay-saying it.[/quote:3u9xz5nm]
Well, they are named in the text after a fashion. Two may reasonably be associated with regional powers in existence at around the time Daniel was written. A third is hopefully associated with an undefined Greek empire that was also already in existence at around the same time (if the reference can reasonably be related to the Athenian or Macedonian Empires, that is, and which I have yet to see demonstrated). The fourth is the result of banging on history with a hammer in a rather desperate effort to make it fit the prediction as required to validate a preexisting assumption.

 

[BobRyan]

Can we concentrate on one or perhaps two that support a particular estimate for the age of Earth derived from the Bible?

hmmm - ok...

Sedimentation rates of all major river deltas.

Well, okay, go on then. Please show the science that tie these to a specific date for the creation of Earth derived from the Bible.

As we all know -- it takes us back to the flood -- when all major rivers were created.

That would be about 4500 years ago.

I don't know that any Darwinism or evolutionism would have predicted such a convenient fact for Creation.

L.K
What about those Daniel 7 predictions, by the way, as you appeared to be advancing this as significant support for the reliability of the Bible? Just to remind you, my questions were:

Which are the four empires that are so ‘predicted’?

Bob
Answer; Babylon - Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and the split of Rome into ten divisions AND the fact that those divided entities would never again be able to reform into a single empire.

Which Babylonian empire is being referred to?

Nebuchadnezzar's - Hint: the one that captured Palestine.

Which Greek empire is being referred to, assuming Grecia can confidently be associated with Greece?

Hint: the one that conquered Persia (as the text says) -- 4th century BC.

You seem to like "just-saying-nay" without looking at the facts first.

I find that curious.

The Book of Daniel is variously attributed to the 6th-2nd Century BCE. 'Predicting' empires (Babylonian, Median and Athenian or Macedonian) that were either already or no longer in existence scarcely counts as a prediction.

Try 6th century B.C that is the one that actually works - and makes sense unless one is an atheist and "needs" the book to be written after the fact so that "there is no god" can be in some way "protected" from history.

What are the ten divisions into which the Roman Empire is supposed to have divided? When did this occur?

538 AD was the point at which the divisions were complete and the last of the 3 segments in the Roman empire that were to vanish - was eliminated.

Bob said

The last one is simply identified as the kingdom that came up after Greece.

Is it not strange to you that the first three 'empires' are confidently identified by name, but the fourth isn't? Can you think why this might be?

Because it would have no meaning to a reader in the 6th century B.C.

However the fact that there would not be a 5th ruling empire and that the nation states would try through marriage to re-unite that empire is clearly predicted. So also the persecution of the saints that would occur for 1260 years.

Many things for the "just-say-nay" groups to be confronted by in scripture.

L.K
Indeed, why should the ‘prediction’ refer to European empires at all? Why not Asian or American, for example?

Bob said
You speak as someone who clearly has not read Daniel.

Well, you see I just had difficulty recognizing Babylon and Media as European empires

Are you needing a world history book for the territory and history of the major world empires in that area from the 6th century BC to the 5th century A.D?

, which was your claim; as the fourth 'empire' is not named at all, I can see no particular reason to single Rome out rather than, say, any other kingdom that came 'after' the Greek 'empire'. I am also intrigued as to how you define the beginning and end of the kingdom of 'Grecia' and even how you can so certainly identify Grecia with Greece.

How many Greek empires did you notice conquering Medo-Persia again??

The Hebrew term is - "Yavan" - NASB translates it 11 times as "Greece".

Sadly for the just-imagine-nay groups -- there are a lot of confirming facts in favor of the Bible.

L.K.
Indeed, how are these empires identified at all? What are the grounds for accepting such an identification?

Bob
Hint: they are named in the text.

Try this concept -- read the text before nay-saying it.

Well, they are named in the text after a fashion. Two may reasonably be associated with regional powers in existence at around the time Daniel was written.

A convenient eisegesis of the text.

Stick with the facts please.

A third is hopefully associated with an undefined Greek empire that was also already in existence at around the same time (if the reference can reasonably be related to the Athenian or Macedonian Empires, that is, and which I have yet to see demonstrated). The fourth is the result of banging on history with a hammer in a rather desperate effort to make it fit the prediction as required to validate a preexisting assumption.

Hint: Every history book known to mankind shows Babylon - Medo-Persia - Greece and Rome as world empires following in succession - conquering the predicessor as the Bible shows. The fact that Daniel predicted this sequence in the 6th century B.C is obvious embarrassment to agnostic and atheist groups -- but is a noticable fact for anyone who took the time to read the book of Daniel.

In fact that Bible also predicts the rapid rise of Greece - the prominence of Alexandar the Great and the split of Greece into four after his death. (Dan 8)

Every history book known to mankind marks the rapid conquest by Alexandar and the division of Greece into 4 kingdoms.

Every history book known to mankind shows Rome divided during the invasion of the germanic tribes. Divsions that still exist today in the form of France, England, Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

Every history book known to makind admits that this division resulted in the European nation states who tried for centuries to re-unite through marriage and through war - but failing.

The "deny-the-obvious" tactics of the just-say-nay-group appears to be all that they have left. Why pretend not to "notice history" at this point? Where is that getting you?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ So are you claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's Empire (605-562 BCE) was European in extent and was 'predicted' by a text you also claim was written in the 6th Century BCE?

And you are also claiming that the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE) was also European in extent and was also 'predicted' by a text you claim was written in the 6th Century BCE?

I would welcome an answer to these questions to begin with.

 

[lordkalvan]

....Sedimentation rates of all major river deltas.

Well, okay, go on then. Please show the science that tie these to a specific date for the creation of Earth derived from the Bible.

As we all know -- it takes us back to the flood -- when all major rivers were created.

That would be about 4500 years ago.

I don't know that any Darwinism or evolutionism would have predicted such a convenient fact for Creation.

Well, perhaps you would care to illustrate your sweeping assertion with some convenient facts, such as the actual 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' that will support your claim. The only 'convenient fact' we have seen so far is this one:

The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years.

And we haven't even seen any data for this claim, never mind 'all major river deltas'. How much 'less than 30,000 years' does 'less than' have to be to 'be about 4,500 years ago'?

 

[BobRyan]

I am claiming that there were 4 major world empires that covered palestine starting with Babylon and then going to Medo-Persia and then Greece a the time of Alexandar and then Rome.

You know -- "just the incredibly obvious" point.

Then I am pointing to the fact that Daniel gave this 4 world empire prediction starting in Daniel 2 and then in more detail in Dan 7 then in even more detail in Dan 8 - such that he even predicts the rapid advancement of Greece and the split into four kingdoms of the Greek empire at the death of Alexandar as well as the rise of Rome, the split of Rome into 10 kingdoms and ultimately the 1260 years of the dark ages after the break up of Rome.

Basically I am pointing to "inconvenient fact after inconvenient fact" in Daniel for the just-say-nay group.

BTW maybe you can help with something... no matter what the Bible subject your side of the discussion always seems to leave you "less than" if it turns out that the Bible is correct. I am still not sure why accuracy in the Bible is always a bad thing from your POV. Are you atheist?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ So are you claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's Empire (605-562 BCE) was European in extent and was 'predicted' by a text you also claim was written in the 6th Century BCE?

And you are also claiming that the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE) was also European in extent and was also 'predicted' by a text you claim was written in the 6th Century BCE?

I ask these questions because, when I had expressed confusion about your use of the phrase 'four European empires' before, you put me down with this crushing response:

Are you needing a world history book for the territory and history of the major world empires in that area from the 6th century BC to the 5th century A.D?

I am interested in the dates because, granting for the sake of my questions your claim that Daniel is a 6th Century BCE work, that two of those empires were in existence in the 6th Century BCE or earlier makes a 6th Century prophecy concerning them naturally less convincing.

I would welcome an answer to these questions to begin with and perhaps when we have clarified this we can move on to your other points?

 

[BobRyan]

I am claiming that there were 4 major world empires that covered palestine starting with Babylon and then going to Medo-Persia and then Greece a the time of Alexandar and then Rome.

You know -- "just the incredibly obvious" point.

L.K - you seem to be concerned with the end of the Babylonian Empire as we find it in Daniel - where the Medes and Persians took over. Please read chapter 5 to see the endpoint you seem to have so much concern about. (an end point in 539 B.C).

Also you may want to enlighten us as to why you feel "compelled" to just-say-nay to every single point we bring up from the Bible.

While you are at it - note that Daniels predictions in chapters 2, 7,8,9 are magnificently fulfilled not only in the prediction of the 4 major ancient world empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome) but also in the prediction about the 1260 years of the dark ages ANDthe fact that the European nations would try to re-assemble that "Empire" through marriage and through conquest but would never be able to achieve the goal.



Remember this?

Bob
Then I am pointing to the fact that Daniel gave this 4 world empire prediction starting in Daniel 2 and then in more detail in Dan 7 then in even more detail in Dan 8 - such that he even predicts the rapid advancement of Greece and the split into four kingdoms of the Greek empire at the death of Alexandar as well as the rise of Rome, the split of Rome into 10 kingdoms and ultimately the 1260 years of the dark ages after the break up of Rome.

Basically I am pointing to "inconvenient fact after inconvenient fact" in Daniel for the just-say-nay group.

BTW maybe you can help with something... no matter what the Bible subject your side of the discussion always seems to leave you "less than" if it turns out that the Bible is correct. I am still not sure why accuracy in the Bible is always a bad thing from your POV. Are you atheist?

Bob

L.K

I am interested in the dates because, granting for the sake of my questions your claim that Daniel is a 6th Century BCE work,

Fine - read the book of Daniel and you will see the claim stated clearly -- start with Dan 1:1, then 2:2 then Dan 5:29-31 then 7:1 -- you know "the obvious places" to see the dates for the events in Daniel's life.

Then if you would not mind addressing the question put to you in the previous post and quoted here -- how is it that each of these Bible facts are in some way a challenge to your position? Are you atheist?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, this post is in no way a reply to the questions I asked in my last post. Indeed, you seem to have deliberately avoided answering those questions at all. Here they are again:

So are you claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's Empire (605-562 BCE) was European in extent and was 'predicted' by a text you also claim was written in the 6th Century BCE?

And are you also claiming that the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE) was also European in extent and was also 'predicted' by a text you claim was written in the 6th Century BCE?

I ask these questions because, when I had expressed confusion about your use of the phrase 'four European empires' before, you put me down with this crushing response:

Are you needing a world history book for the territory and history of the major world empires in that area from the 6th century BC to the 5th century A.D?

I am interested in the dates because, granting for the sake of my questions your claim that Daniel is a 6th Century BCE work, that two of those empires were in existence in the 6th Century BCE or earlier makes a 6th Century prophecy concerning them naturally less convincing.

I would welcome an answer to these questions to begin with and perhaps when we have clarified this we can move on to your other points?

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob,

I hope that you haven't lost sight of this outstanding matter:

....Sedimentation rates of all major river deltas.

Well, okay, go on then. Please show the science that tie these to a specific date for the creation of Earth derived from the Bible.

As we all know -- it takes us back to the flood -- when all major rivers were created.

That would be about 4500 years ago.

I don't know that any Darwinism or evolutionism would have predicted such a convenient fact for Creation.

Well, perhaps you would care to illustrate your sweeping assertion with some convenient facts, such as the actual 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' that will support your claim. The only 'convenient fact' we have seen so far is this one:

The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years.

And we haven't even seen any data for this claim, never mind 'all major river deltas'. How much 'less than 30,000 years' does 'less than' have to be to 'be about 4,500 years ago'?

 

[BobRyan]

Just the obvious.

1. 30,0000 years is far short of 60 million or 4 billion

2. Sedimentation rates are based on current existng river volume. EVEN evolutionists admit that Kentucky, Penn, Canada, the Rockies etc were all under water at one time. The land area first drained by the Mississippi was massive -- a wild assumption that this had no change at all in sedimentation rates is not even possible for atheists.

3. Given that 80 - 90 % of that detla is formed during the draining of the continent after the flood the 30,000 years is easily "reduced". But there is no way to EXTEND it out to 60 million!

And this is just the tip of the short-geocrhonometer iceberg that atheists have to deal with.

AS for the Bible being "REAL" notice that in Ex 20:8-11 the actual OLD vs YOUNG issue IS addressed "FOR IN SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the SEAS and ALL that is IN THEM".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, still no substance to support the claim about the sedimentation rates of 'all major river deltas', I see. Again, you provide no links or evidence to support your assertions.

I do not see how arguing that 30 thousand < 60 million and 4 billion in any way establishes support for an argument that 30 thousand = 4,500.

So far all we have seen is empty bluster and zero evidence.

 

[Vic C.]

Since this is a Christian site, I'd like to request we refrain from using "common era" acronyms like bce and ce.

Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

^ Bob, still no substance to support the claim about the sedimentation rates of 'all major river deltas',

Just the "substance" that water volume determines sedimentation rates -- and even atheists admit that large sections of the US and Canada were under water.

Just the "substance" that as the water volume decreases from that having "drawining Kentucky, Pennsylvania, NY, Canada" etc down to the normalized tributaries we see today -- the volume goes dwn.

Just the "substance" that a catastrophic flood would account for more than 80% of the current deposits.

Just the "substance" that you can not extend the existing volume back far enough to please the evolutionist's story telling.

Back to "What the bible says" -- "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" Ex 20:8-11


This fits all the YEC geochronometric values such as sedimentation rates of river deltas -- all major rivers created at the same time.. the influx of helium into the upper atmostphere, the salt content of the oceans, the sediment layers on the ocean floors -- etc etc etc.

What is amazing is that the "just say nay" groups never compare their lists of "just say nay" prior to findings such as the Ebla tablets -- vs post-finding.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hint there are a number of Bible believing Christians here that will be interested in the information at this site showing a list of young-earth geochronometeric processes as well as young solar system and young Galaxy metrics. (And by Young I mean -- not billions of years for Universe and not millions to billions for earth)

http://www.godsholyspirit.com/creation/ ... rs_Old.htm

But I do not expectthe just-say-nay groups to have that same interest or attention to detail.

However Christians take an immediate interest in the data about the earths magnetic field cycle which argues for life on earth for less than 10,000 years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... gnetic.asp

We see a similar timeline with the amount of Helium accumulated in the upper atmosphere.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob,

You made specific claims about the scientific evidence supporting the creationist date for the origin of Earth. When I suggested we limit our examination of that evidence to one or two particular pieces of evidence that supported this claim and for the date of creation that they attested to, you chose sedimentation rates of 'all major river deltas', You have yet to post the date of creation that this evidence is supposed to support and, more importantly, you have not yet posted any of the evidence itself. Assertions and unreferenced and sweeping claims about what 'atheists' may or may not admit is not evidence. Please supply some evidence for your claims concerning the sedimentation rates of 'all major river deltas' directly supporting the age of Earth or withdraw your claim that such scientific evidence exists and we can move on to another such piece of evidence.

 

[lordkalvan]

Since this is a Christian site, I'd like to request we refrain from using "common era" acronyms like bce and ce.

Thanks.

The BCE dating convention is widely accepted in scientific and historical circles and has been adopted to avoid both confusion in general and insensitivity towards non-Christians. It is generally understood to be equally 'translated' as Before Common Era, Before Christian Era and Before Current Era. I am rather taken aback to find sensitivity to such usage on a forum dealing with science, but note your request. I would ask for clarificaton in the case where a quote is used and the usage is contained within the quote; my preference is to leave quotes as unedited as possible and, in such a case, I would see no reason to edit 'BCE' to 'BC...'

 

[BobRyan]

BCE is smoke and mirrors for the SAME DATES as B.C.

CE is smoke and mirrors for the SAME DATES as A.D.

So "no new information is ADDED in the BCE and CE" designators. None at all!!

The only thing gained by those dumbed-down versions is REMOVING the reference for HOW the dividing line was determined. It is a downsized statement deliberately trying to convey LESS information -- in a way that will be politically acceptable to non-Christians who would prefer to FORGET how that dividing line was determined.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theog ... -body.html

While some people do bend it around to "Before Christian Era" it is immediately apparent to the objective unbiased reader that the non-Christian for "Before Common Era" would not work with "B.C" because "Before Common" makes no sense. The only way to insert the dechristianize form is to first make the definition ambiguous then begin using ONLY the "common era" term whenever speaking of the abbreviation (you know -- the same way the history channel and PBS are doing).

Just stating the obvious.

Bob

 

[Vic C.]

The BCE dating convention is widely accepted in scientific and historical circles and has been adopted to avoid both confusion in general and insensitivity towards non-Christians. It is generally understood to be equally 'translated' as Before Common Era, Before Christian Era and Before Current Era. I am rather taken aback to find sensitivity to such usage on a forum dealing with science, but note your request.

Thank you. Note that you pointed out we are insensitive to non-Christians but then point out we are sensitive to the use of bce and ce. :smt017 BC/AD has been the norm for over 1900 years. Bob is correct; it is yet another effort to take Jesus out of the picture. He existed. He split time. Calendars were arranged around His existence. I see no other reason for changing it.

I would ask for clarificaton in the case where a quote is used and the usage is contained within the quote; my preference is to leave quotes as unedited as possible and, in such a case, I would see no reason to edit 'BCE' to 'BC...'

Clarification is: When quoting from another source where copyrights and/or intellectual property might be compromised, the bce/ce must stay. I have no problems with that.

Thanks for understanding; carry on. 8-)

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Vic,

I'm sorry if you understood my comments as suggesting insensitivity to non-Christians by this site, that was not my intention. The 'avoidance of insensitivity' I was referring to was in the general scientific and historical community at large, which comprises scholars of varying beliefs and persuasions and for me pretty much explains the habit I have fallen into of using it (I can't speak for others, of course). My surprise was that the understanding of BCE as 'Before Christian Era' was not recognized on this site as an acceptable interpretation of the abbreviation when used here as this is also recognized by many non-Christians as well.