4004 BC

[ProphetMark]

The date of creation, as calculated by somebody, using the genealogies and ages of people in the bible. Can anyone tell me which genealogies etc? so I can check it out for myself.

 

[Pard]

My first inclination was to say "the boring ones in the Torah".

Let me see,

Here is a good place to find all the various pedigrees in the Bible

Complete Bible Genealogy - Jesus family tree - Kings of Judah and Israel

 

[TorchHeart]

The date of creation, as calculated by somebody, using the genealogies and ages of people in the bible. Can anyone tell me which genealogies etc? so I can check it out for myself.

The person was a monk. He wasn't familiar with the science in the world that God had created, and his methods were simply to use the alleged ages of people in the Bible (not even taking into account changes in how people measured time in years). If I can find the man's name, I'll post it.

However, now days, God has shown us through this world and science that the world is millions of years old, and the universe even older. It is interesting, however, how the monk came to his "conclussions.'

 

[Servant John]

The person was a monk. He wasn't familiar with the science in the world that God had created, and his methods were simply to use the alleged ages of people in the Bible (not even taking into account changes in how people measured time in years). If I can find the man's name, I'll post it.

However, now days, God has shown us through this world and science that the world is millions of years old, and the universe even older. It is interesting, however, how the monk came to his "conclussions.'

No, God has not "shown" us the world is millions of years old. That view is from secular science with an atheist presupposition. That "science" is incompatible with what scripture teaches. They hide behind the "billions" of years arguments to white wash the holes in their own theories. In fact, there is plenty of sound science that supports the biblical narrative and the time line of scripture.

1) There is ample evidence that suggests radiometric dating is suspect and cannot accurately measure more than a few thousand years.
2) A global flood account from a few thousand years ago has indeed been proven to exist.
3) Evidence exists that sedimentary layers and fossils can be formed in as little as a few hundred years, not the millions that secular scientists claim are required.

On the textual side, the creation narrative uses twenty-four hour literal days. A Hebrew study will confirm that the description of day is, in fact, 24 hour periods.

The real issue at hand is either you believe what scripture teaches using a proper hermeneutic principle or you don't. If you choose to blindly follow what secular science teaches, a science which will do anything from shoddy science to outright deception to disprove the bible, you are discounting what scripture really stands for - the infallible truth of God.

I have barely scratched the surface and there are some fine apologetic ministries like Answers in Genesis and others who have much more detail.

 

[coffeeelover]

No, God has not "shown" us the world is millions of years old. That view is from secular science with an atheist presupposition. That "science" is incompatible with what scripture teaches. They hide behind the "billions" of years arguments to white wash the holes in their own theories. In fact, there is plenty of sound science that supports the biblical narrative and the time line of scripture.

1) There is ample evidence that suggests radiometric dating is suspect and cannot accurately measure more than a few thousand years.
2) A global flood account from a few thousand years ago has indeed been proven to exist.
3) Evidence exists that sedimentary layers and fossils can be formed in as little as a few hundred years, not the millions that secular scientists claim are required.

On the textual side, the creation narrative uses twenty-four hour literal days. A Hebrew study will confirm that the description of day is, in fact, 24 hour periods.

The real issue at hand is either you believe what scripture teaches using a proper hermeneutic principle or you don't. If you choose to blindly follow what secular science teaches, a science which will do anything from shoddy science to outright deception to disprove the bible, you are discounting what scripture really stands for - the infallible truth of God.

I have barely scratched the surface and there are some fine apologetic ministries like Answers in Genesis and others who have much more detail.

Sounds a more than a bit paranoid that all these scientists are lying. You sound like strangelove. Where science fakes all this stuff in order to destroy the bible. The sun is the center of the solar system not the earth. The solar system is on an outer spiral arm of the of the milky way. The universe is billions of years old as is the earth. Christians should not promote ignorance and paranoia.

 

[Pard]

John,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, we need to approach those who do not believe with less hostility. They have been preconditioned their entire academic lives to believe in an old earth. It is hardly their fault. Just saying because I felt a bit of hostility in your post, other than that I am in total agreement with you.

The thing is, the old earth believers, secular and Christian alike, are the ones who ridicule and belittle. Let us not stoop to their level because science should never work on the emotional level that they attempt to function on (Coffeelover's post be a perfect example).

 

[coffeeelover]

John,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, we need to approach those who do not believe with less hostility. They have been preconditioned their entire academic lives to believe in an old earth. It is hardly their fault. Just saying because I felt a bit of hostility in your post, other than that I am in total agreement with you.

The thing is, the old earth believers, secular and Christian alike, are the ones who ridicule and belittle. Let us not stoop to their level because science should never work on the emotional level that they attempt to function on (Coffeelover's post be a perfect example).

Honestly its hard not to belittle just a tad, when young earthers depend so heavily on vast conspiracies by science to fool us all. Stranglelove is an extreme example but you fall pretty close. How are you so different than he? You both believe in conspiracies by science.

 

[jasoncran]

the person behind the conclusion maynt be the friendliest to christians. ie richard dawkins, and also the guy who claimed that the god doesnt exist cause the human jaw was inneficient.

who said that god didnt make us to die, in fact the bible clearly states that with the curse upon all men.

we accept that engineers make parts to fail, and yet never deny or discredit them, but with the lord we clearly get angry, yet god doesnt take our hard earned money and sell us junk.

work on any new car and you can find some deliberately designed parts that are meant to have an early life.

ie fords plastic power steering pump pulleys,

 

[Pard]

we accept that engineers make parts to fail, and yet never deny or discredit them, but with the lord we clearly get angry, yet god doesnt take our hard earned money and sell us junk.

work on any new car and you can find some deliberately designed parts that are meant to have an early life.

ie fords plastic power steering pump pulleys,

Or lightbulbs...2

 

[jasoncran]

yes, that is true. on lightbulbs as well.

i should do a thread on those car lightbulbs that dont die.

 

[Pard]

yes, that is true. on lightbulbs as well.

i should do a thread on those car lightbulbs that dont die.

Or on lightbulbs that are 100 years old and still shining bright... mean while the lightbulb I have had for all of 100 days just died on me.

 

[coffeeelover]

Or on lightbulbs that are 100 years old and still shining bright... mean while the lightbulb I have had for all of 100 days just died on me.

Turning light bulbs off and on is what makes them burn out, but the stories of the really old light bulbs are urban myths.

Longest Burning Light Bulbs. Roadside America

 

[jasoncran]

there is a designed light bulb that isnt a light but rather a spark plug in a sense. it used the gap of the electrode and anode and a capitacator to create a light that is reflected by mirrors and also i think amplified by a lense as well.

they dont often fail.

the only cars known to have these the lexus(cant recall this one) and the lincoln towncar(2001).

ever heard of high intensity discharge lights.

 

[Theofilus]

Turning light bulbs off and on is what makes them burn out, but the stories of the really old light bulbs are urban myths.

Longest Burning Light Bulbs. Roadside America

That article you link to claims that it is not an urban myth. Those bulbs aren't exactly "still burning brightly" though, since they're only about as bright as 3 candles.

 

[jasoncran]

bulbs for cars have hours as lifespans, not how much they get turned out or off. my nissan eats headlights, yet the other tail lights and the tag lights seem to last triple the life of my headlamps(1.5yrs). i use my lights daily when i throw my paper route(1 hr actually throw time approx). yet with doing that for 4 yrs, i just now had to replace my tag lights, and those had 115,000 miles on them, as they were oem.

 

[handy]

Going back to the OP, I really don't think that Christians should divide over the whole "age of the earth" thing.

There is one fact that many Christians forget far too often:

God never recorded the age of the earth in the Bible.

The age of the earth was not information that He deemed necessary for us to know. There is no chapter:verse that states how old the earth is.

People, not God, but fallible people, are determining the "biblical" age of the earth by adding up the ages of folks in genealogies. This is a misuse of genealogies, a misuse of Scriptures even. It is a misuse of the genealogies because their purpose was to establish a: the direct line of Jesus from David, and David from Adam and b: to establish the rights by with the patriarchal Hebrews exercised their authority. It's a misuse of Scriptures because by stating that "the Bible teaches us the earth is (X) years old (fill in your date, I've heard Christians argue anywhere from 4000-10,000 years on this)" is actually adding to Scriptures, something we are commanded not to do, because the Bible states no such age.

I count a specific age of the earth right up there with a specific date for the Lord's Second Coming: something that no one knows for certain except God, and He ain't telling.

To me, the best text to look at for this subject is 1 Timothy 1:3-4: "As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith."


The kids are back in Catechism now that it's fall. I like the fact that our church has catechism, being that it is a formal instruction of the bible and the doctrines of the church. Last night's lesson was on Genesis 1:1-2:3, the creation story. Rather than fill the kids heads with Young Earth Theology (not found in Scriptures) or fight against the Theory of Evolution (which my daughter will be learning in depth next year) we rather stressed the differences and the similarities between the Creation Story and TOE.

The similarities we covered between Genesis and TOE are that the earth started out covered with water, that fish and birds showed up before mammals and that man was last on the scene. I also brought up one theory that I read a long time ago about the earth being bathed in light from the expanding universe long before the rotation around the sun was established.

The difference I stressed the most with the kids was that the Bible teaches that God created "each after its own kind" whereas the TOE teaches that all life evolved from a lower life form. Our goal with the kids is to arm them with what the Bible teaches, (and does NOT teach) and to encourage them to find common ground by which to discuss things, rather than argue points.

Points can be argued, and our friendly evolutionists can be so turned off by the argument that we lose the opportunity to "further the administration of God" with them.

 

[jasoncran]

i wonder where crying rock has been as he isnt a young earth creationist, but an old earth creationist.

 

[Sparkey]

I like the answer, "I don't know," better than any other I've found.

Has anybody given the name of the "guy"? Bishop Ussher

Somebody in thread also mentioned AIG (Answers in Genesis).

Did we get a little sidetracked about planned obsolescence and lightbulbs? Interesting though. The point was that God has made "vessels for destruction," right?

[Romans 9:21 KJV] - Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Thanks Handy for your reply.

 

[coffeeelover]

I like the answer, "I don't know," better than any other I've found.

Has anybody given the name of the "guy"? Bishop Ussher

Somebody in thread also mentioned AIG (Answers in Genesis).

Did we get a little sidetracked about planned obsolescence and lightbulbs? Interesting though. The point was that God has made "vessels for destruction," right?

Thanks Handy for your reply.

Isn't the answer "I don't know" just a bit of a cop out? Science may not have calculated the exact age of Earth or the universe down to the exact day or second, but surely reasonable people can see that scientists have demonstrated that an age of 6000, years is just plain wrong.

 

[Theofilus]

Isn't the answer "I don't know" just a bit of a cop out? Science may not have calculated the exact age of Earth or the universe down to the exact day or second, but surely reasonable people can see that scientists have demonstrated that an age of 6000, years is just plain wrong.

While "I don't know" may be a cop out, saying that "scientists have demonstrated" anything regarding the age of the earth or evolution is simply wrong. Consider this example:

A fossil of a previously unkown species is found. An evolutionist looks at it and, although he sees many differences, he also notices a few similarities to modern man and declares "this was our ancestor". A creationist looks at the same fossil and, although he notices a few similarities, he also sees a large number of differences and declares "this was not our ancestor, but is an extinct species of ape".

On what grounds can we say that "scientists have demonstrated" anything? Why do we say that the evolutionists are always right and the creationists are wrong? Some scientists interpret things one way and other scientists interpret the same things differently. Nobody has really "demonstrated" anything.