[_ Old Earth _] Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[dad]

Nope, it's not the same with heaven, because heaven is supposed to exist NOW, but your fantasy universe never did and never will .

False, it is not supposed to exist here now.

It's better to have tales of science, then to have dad's skewed version of a magical universe .

If you like fairy tales better than bible.

LOL HAHAHA, I haven't even began to give you proof. Why do you always avoid the topic of proof? You seem to be pretty confident in your theory, but you NEVER EVER try to prove it . As I said, you can believe in ANYTHING, but proving it is quite different.

You can claim anything as so called science. Since that can't be proved, you need to chose what to believe.

LOL, pick and choose everywhere, from the bible, from science, from the Pope, by the time you're done sewing your story it's going to have to write another Bible, because almost none of what you're saying is in the current one LOL.

False. Notice your lack of a bible case?

 

[dad]

HAHAHA, NOPE! Not true LOL, fictitious numbers and dates, none of which are correlated and correctly aligned... PERIOD!

Tell us about it??? Which is wrong and why?? Or are you doing what you usually do here??

 

[Guest]

Nope, it's not the same with heaven, because heaven is supposed to exist NOW, but your fantasy universe never did and never will .

False, it is not supposed to exist here now.

Then where do good Christians go after they die?

It's better to have tales of science, then to have dad's skewed version of a magical universe .

If you like fairy tales better than bible.

I like facts, which we don't see in the Bible .

LOL HAHAHA, I haven't even began to give you proof. Why do you always avoid the topic of proof? You seem to be pretty confident in your theory, but you NEVER EVER try to prove it . As I said, you can believe in ANYTHING, but proving it is quite different.

You can claim anything as so called science. Since that can't be proved, you need to chose what to believe.

I have told you, show me your proof and all I get is the above nonsense, EVERY TIME!

LOL, pick and choose everywhere, from the bible, from science, from the Pope, by the time you're done sewing your story it's going to have to write another Bible, because almost none of what you're saying is in the current one LOL.

False. Notice your lack of a bible case?

[/quote]
LOL, I noticed how you made up your own .

 

[Guest]

HAHAHA, NOPE! Not true LOL, fictitious numbers and dates, none of which are correlated and correctly aligned... PERIOD!

Tell us about it??? Which is wrong and why?? Or are you doing what you usually do here??

You have the Bible and science both telling you that the earth is not 6000 years old, yet you stick to your fantasy stories... just sad.

Here you go: http://www.answersincreation.org/
This site is pretty much dedicated to proving that YEC are wrong and that OEC are right, it discusses hundreds of rebuttals in GREAT detail. There are over 1,300 articles so enjoy reading some . These articles study different portions of the 6k years old theory and all of which prove it wrong using, none other than, a "Bible Case" (and some logic of course) .

 

[dad]

You have the Bible and science both telling you that the earth is not 6000 years old, yet you stick to your fantasy stories... just sad.

Pay attention, science says nothing of the sort. It is only the assumption of a universe state as the same in the past ALL is built on. Period. I have looked closely at it, for some time now. As for the bible, the dates are within a fairly small margin of interpretation, some hundreds of years. You either believe it or not, there is no question it is there.

Here you go: http://www.answersincreation.org/
This site is pretty much dedicated to proving that YEC are wrong and that OEC are right, it discusses hundreds of rebuttals in GREAT detail. There are over 1,300 articles so enjoy reading some . These articles study different portions of the 6k years old theory and all of which prove it wrong using, none other than, a "Bible Case" (and some logic of course) .

Getting desperate I see. Lost your case, and try to resort to some silly doubt site. Let me save you some time, they got nothin at all, really. About as scary as kindergarten cops, with little water guns. Ridiculous.

 

[Dunzo]

You have the Bible and science both telling you that the earth is not 6000 years old, yet you stick to your fantasy stories... just sad.

Pay attention, science says nothing of the sort. It is only the assumption of a universe state as the same in the past ALL is built on.

You still don't seem to understand that there is no evidence to the contrary. Just drop it.

[quote:7adaa]
Here you go: http://www.answersincreation.org/
This site is pretty much dedicated to proving that YEC are wrong and that OEC are right, it discusses hundreds of rebuttals in GREAT detail. There are over 1,300 articles so enjoy reading some . These articles study different portions of the 6k years old theory and all of which prove it wrong using, none other than, a "Bible Case" (and some logic of course) .

Getting desperate I see. Lost your case, and try to resort to some silly doubt site. Let me save you some time, they got nothin at all, really. About as scary as kindergarten cops, with little water guns. Ridiculous.[/quote:7adaa]

Fail. How about you try reading some of the articles and attempting to understand them before dismissing it altogether?

 

[love2live]

You have the Bible and science both telling you that the earth is not 6000 years old, yet you stick to your fantasy stories... just sad.

Pay attention, science says nothing of the sort. It is only the assumption of a universe state as the same in the past ALL is built on. Period. I have looked closely at it, for some time now. As for the bible, the dates are within a fairly small margin of interpretation, some hundreds of years. You either believe it or not, there is no question it is there.

Here you go: http://www.answersincreation.org/
This site is pretty much dedicated to proving that YEC are wrong and that OEC are right, it discusses hundreds of rebuttals in GREAT detail. There are over 1,300 articles so enjoy reading some . These articles study different portions of the 6k years old theory and all of which prove it wrong using, none other than, a "Bible Case" (and some logic of course) .

Getting desperate I see. Lost your case, and try to resort to some silly doubt site. Let me save you some time, they got nothin at all, really. About as scary as kindergarten cops, with little water guns. Ridiculous.

I don't know why you are assuming anybody getting desperate, when you are provided with the evidence, then you're the one that fails to provide a valid argument against the evidence and you're the one that fails to produce evidence as well. There is nothing desperate about providing evidence, the only thing desperate is your attempts to distort reality by inventing a magical universe and making up things as you go. Simple, yet awfully truthful... not your cup of tea of course. Over 1,300 articles proving you wrong, for example:

What then is the issue? Since we both accept Biblical authority, the issue is not Biblical authority itself, but the interpretation of the Bible. We both look at the same Scripture, and interpret it differently. At the root of this difference is modern science.

Old earth creationists accept many of the discoveries of science, and young earth creationists do not, choosing instead to create their own branch of pseudo-science. However, according to Romans 1:20, God is clearly seen in His creation. In order for young earth scientists to "see God," they must twist and re-interpret the scientific data to make it fit their young earth creation science model. Old earth creationists do not have to do this...thanks to Romans 1:20, we can accept the observations of modern science and the Bible.

In summary, Ham and Answers in Genesis is falsely claiming that it is about Biblical authority, when in fact Biblical authority has nothing to do with it. It's all about how we interpret the Bible in the light of modern science. Ham would like his followers to believe they have a corner on the market in Biblical authority, but nothing could be further from the truth (which describes most of young earth creationism).

Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
What does Romans 1:20 have to do with this debate? See below:

Yes, the truths of creation are crystal clear to old earth creationists, but clear as mud to young earth creationists. Why do I say this? When old earth creationists examine the universe and our world, the evidence is clearly billions of years old. However, when young earth creationists examine it, they have to twist and contort the data to make it fit their model of a 6,000 year old earth. They reject the principles of Romans 1:20.

Consider radiometric dating. The scientific principles behind radiometric dating are clearly understood. Radiometric dating is accepted by all scientists as presenting reliable dates for the age of the earth. For a scientist who accepts radiometric dating, Romans 1:20 works perfectly…it is clear that a simple reading of the evidence supports billions of years. God’s creation gives an easy to read testimony to its age.

 

[dad]

You still don't seem to understand that there is no evidence to the contrary. Just drop it.

Unless you had evidence to begin with, that matters not at all.

Fail. How about you try reading some of the articles and attempting to understand them before dismissing it altogether?

Well, OK, I see you might need convincing. Give us your best article from there, and we can run with that.

 

[dad]

I don't know why you are assuming anybody getting desperate, when you are provided with the evidence,

You really think listing some Mickey Mouse doubt site is evidence? No. If you want to provide that, do it.

then you're the one that fails to provide a valid argument against the evidence and you're the one that fails to produce evidence as well.

That would be true if you had a point. So far, you don't. I have lots of valid arguments, and if you ever warrant it, I can bring them to bear. Meanwhile, it seems you are merely chirping in, because you seem to feel the silly doubt site some posted linked has some sort of merit.

There is nothing desperate about providing evidence, the only thing desperate is your attempts to distort reality by inventing a magical universe and making up things as you go.

Great, then start doing that! A good place to begin, is evidence for a same state past. Let's see that. Cut the smoke here, and git to it.

Simple, yet awfully truthful... not your cup of tea of course. Over 1,300 articles proving you wrong, for example:

What then is the issue? Since we both accept Biblical authority, the issue is not Biblical authority itself, but the interpretation of the Bible. We both look at the same Scripture, and interpret it differently. At the root of this difference is modern science.

Old earth creationists accept many of the discoveries of science, and young earth creationists do not,

Absolute nonsense, of course. I accept ALL. What I do not accept is a myth of a same state past. No one discovered that! I assure you. Really.
[quote:8c00c]
choosing instead to create their own branch of pseudo-science. However, according to Romans 1:20, God is clearly seen in His creation.

Yes, even in the current state of it. So??

In order for young earth scientists to "see God," they must twist and re-interpret the scientific data to make it fit their young earth creation science model.

Nope. There is NO same state past data.

Old earth creationists do not have to do this...thanks to Romans 1:20, we can accept the observations of modern science and the Bible.

Absolute poppycock. Modern science observes only the present state universe. The bible past and future are something else. You ought to know the book enough to realize that.

In summary, Ham and Answers in Genesis is falsely claiming that it is about Biblical authority, when in fact Biblical authority has nothing to do with it. It's all about how we interpret the Bible in the light of modern science.

Ham who? I know no Ham. AIG is a same state past attempt at looking at things as well.

Ham would like his followers to believe they have a corner on the market in Biblical authority, but nothing could be further from the truth (which describes most of young earth creationism).

If he is some creationist, despite his not having the reasons just right, he is right, and you are wrong. The bible ages are right, creation is very real. The big compromise with present state based so called science was unneeded after all.

Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

My point exactly! The spiritual is what is invisible. They were understood from the beginning, as the spiritual was a big part of things. Even now, if we realize that the spiritual is what the past and future involve, we can clue in.

Yes, the truths of creation are crystal clear to old earth creationists, but clear as mud to young earth creationists. Why do I say this? When old earth creationists examine the universe and our world, the evidence is clearly billions of years old.

False, only in the assumption of a same state past universe has it been looked at. They missed the writing on the wall of time.

However, when young earth creationists examine it, they have to twist and contort the data to make it fit their model of a 6,000 year old earth. They reject the principles of Romans 1:20.

The that also assumed a same past state, had to try to explain it the best they knew how.

Consider radiometric dating. The scientific principles behind radiometric dating are clearly understood.

Very clearly! They assume decay in the past as well!!! That means a same state past is assumed. Prove it.

Radiometric dating is accepted by all scientists as presenting reliable dates for the age of the earth.

All same state past assumption based. That means myth.

For a scientist who accepts radiometric dating, Romans 1:20 works perfectly…it is clear that a simple reading of the evidence supports billions of years. God’s creation gives an easy to read testimony to its age.

[/quote:8c00c]
A simple religious myth based reading, yes. Prove a same state past, or you are very very busted. Period. You can't.

 

[love2live]

A simple religious myth based reading, yes. Prove a same state past, or you are very very busted. Period. You can't.

All that gibber jabber and NO PROOF! You said a lot of things, all of which happened to be your opinion and none of which happened to be your proof. As the articles states: Young Earth Creationists have to invent a completely different science and a completely different reality as you have done in your posts. The truth is in front of your eyes, what God made was true then and it is true NOW, so it is said in Romans 1:20. If you fail to see the truth, that is no excuse, the EVIDENCE is before you!

I've read pretty much your entire argument from top to bottom and it makes no sense. As Free pointed out, accurate dating stops with Abraham. I think plenty of people have told you that you're wrong. I don't think that anybody should debate you anymore because there is no point in debating a delusional person. You decide to interpret the Bible in one way and pretty much everybody agrees that it's wrong, so this argument is done.

 

[dad]

All that gibber jabber and NO PROOF!

Excuse me??? Can you provide here and now, then, proof of either a different or same state past?? If not, then you have nothing at all. If so, let us see it now.

You said a lot of things, all of which happened to be your opinion and none of which happened to be your proof.

Such as???

As the articles states: Young Earth Creationists have to invent a completely different science and a completely different reality as you have done in your posts. The truth is in front of your eyes, what God made was true then and it is true NOW, so it is said in Romans 1:20. If you fail to see the truth, that is no excuse, the EVIDENCE is before you!

Show us this evidence you claim is before us!!! Busted!!!

I've read pretty much your entire argument from top to bottom and it makes no sense. As Free pointed out, accurate dating stops with Abraham.

Then why did Usher, and others take it to Solomon?

I think plenty of people have told you that you're wrong.

About???? ...What??? Everyone is wrong. Even you. Be specific.

I don't think that anybody should debate you anymore because there is no point in debating a delusional person. You decide to interpret the Bible in one way and pretty much everybody agrees that it's wrong, so this argument is done.

Nope. The state of the future and past is not done at all. You ain't even begun. Go fishing, or something, you are out of your depth here.

 

[love2live]

All that gibber jabber and NO PROOF!

Excuse me??? Can you provide here and now, then, proof of either a different or same state past?? If not, then you have nothing at all. If so, let us see it now.

You have not shown anything of the sort, you have no proof and you want to get other people to offer their arguments so you can start nit-picking. Nobody agrees with you, so just give it up.

Show us this evidence you claim is before us!!! Busted!!!

It's no excuse if you're not aware of it, God made the Universe as it is, his creation is true and if you fail to realize that it is no excuse. Read what it said: Romans 1:20.

Then why did Usher, and others take it to Solomon?

Ask Free, I'm not going to argue this with you.

I think plenty of people have told you that you're wrong.

About???? ...What??? Everyone is wrong. Even you. Be specific.

About your idea of Young Earth, it is not logical, nor is it correct... just plain WRONG.

Nope. The state of the future and past is not done at all. You ain't even begun. Go fishing, or something, you are out of your depth here.

And you are too deep here, to deep in YOUR OWN IMAGINATION. When you get in touch with reality, then we can go fishing together!

 

[Free]

Please keep the discussion civil and refrain from flaming and personal attacks.

This is a little on the long side, so bear with me.

"Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.

First problem: Zedekiah had been king (2 Kings 24:17) for 11 years when Jerusalem fell in 586ish. Counting back to when Rehoboam and Jeroboam became kings following Solomon’s death brings us to about 930 B.C.

From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.

Based on the correction above, the start of the Temple is 967 B.C.

From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.

The problem here is that according to Paul (Acts 13:18-20) there were 590 years from the time of the Exodus to the start of the Temple. This puts us at 1557 B.C. If we used 1055 B.C., that would bring us to 1645 B.C. for the Exodus.

It is also worth noting that Josephus puts the gap at 592 years.

From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.

Acts 7:6 puts the date at 400 years, although that could just be for a nice round approximate number. Going with 430 years puts Abraham entering Canaan to about 1987 B.C. to 2075 B.C.

Another problem that arises here is that of genealogies:

Exo 6:16 These are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, the years of the life of Levi being 137 years.
Exo 6:17 The sons of Gershon: Libni and Shimei, by their clans.
Exo 6:18 The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, the years of the life of Kohath being 133 years.
Exo 6:19 The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. These are the clans of the Levites according to their generations.
Exo 6:20 Amram took as his wife Jochebed his father's sister, and she bore him Aaron and Moses, the years of the life of Amram being 137 years.

Looking at Gen. 46:11, Kohath was born prior to the Israelites decent into Egypt, 430 years prior to the Exodus. Since Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus, that puts a minimum of 350 years between Kohath and Moses, so he could not have been Moses’ grandfather.

Also, here it appears that Moses is the great-grandson of Leviâ€â€4 generations from Levi to Moses. Levi was Jacob’s son and Joseph’s brother. However, 1 Chr. 7:22-27 shows something different:
1Ch 7:22 And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him.
1Ch 7:23 And Ephraim went in to his wife, and she conceived and bore a son. And he called his name Beriah, because disaster had befallen his house.
1Ch 7:24 His daughter was Sheerah, who built both Lower and Upper Beth-horon, and Uzzen-sheerah.
1Ch 7:25 Rephah was his son, Resheph his son, Telah his son, Tahan his son,
1Ch 7:26 Ladan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son,
1Ch 7:27 Nun his son, Joshua his son.

Ephraim is Joseph’s son and we have 10 generations from Ephraim to Joshua. It is now more than obvious that the genealogy in Ex. 6 is an abbreviated version.

Do you see the problem with assuming that genealogies make chronologies? This is only one of several glaring examples.

Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.

Born approx. 2062 B.C. to 2150 B.C. And this is as accurate as we can get since, as has already been shown, genealogies do not necessarily represent an accurate chronology.

From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].

This is a larger problem since all that is said about the date of Abraham’s birth is that after his "father" was 70, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. There is no date given to when Abram was born and the names may not even be in chronological order.

The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.

The main problem with this argument is the assumption that the genealogies in Genesis are in chronological order; careful study has already shown that this is not necessarily the case.

Gen 5:32 After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
It seems that Ham is older than Japheth.

Gen 9:24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him,
The reference is to Ham--the youngest.



In the OT in general:

1Ch 6:3 The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
1Ch 6:4 Eleazar fathered Phinehas, Phinehas fathered Abishua,
1Ch 6:5 Abishua fathered Bukki, Bukki fathered Uzzi,
1Ch 6:6 Uzzi fathered Zerahiah, Zerahiah fathered Meraioth,
1Ch 6:7 Meraioth fathered Amariah, Amariah fathered Ahitub,
1Ch 6:8 Ahitub fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Ahimaaz,
1Ch 6:9 Ahimaaz fathered Azariah, Azariah fathered Johanan,
1Ch 6:10 and Johanan fathered Azariah (it was he who served as priest in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem).
1Ch 6:11 Azariah fathered Amariah, Amariah fathered Ahitub,
1Ch 6:12 Ahitub fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Shallum,
1Ch 6:13 Shallum fathered Hilkiah, Hilkiah fathered Azariah,
1Ch 6:14 Azariah fathered Seraiah, Seraiah fathered Jehozadak;

Ezr 7:1 Now after this, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah,
Ezr 7:2 son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub,
Ezr 7:3 son of Amariah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth,
Ezr 7:4 son of Zerahiah, son of Uzzi, son of Bukki,
Ezr 7:5 son of Abishua, son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the chief priest--
Ezr 7:6 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses that the LORD the God of Israel had given, and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was on him.

Interesting that a skilled scribe would omit some names from his genealogical tree. I would argue that it was intentional by Ezra.

One of the more glaring examples:

1Ch 26:24 and Shebuel the son of Gershom, son of Moses, was chief officer in charge of the treasuries.

Shebuel was around in the time of David, about 1000 B.C. but Gershom is the first son of Moses (Ex. 2:22).

Then there is the genealogy of Christ which omits 3 generations.

With all that in mind, we now come to anthropology. If modern dating is accurate, and that remains to be seen, then the dates given for man arriving in North America over some ort of land bridge come into play. Dates are quite wide ranging (a quick internet search yielded dates of 12,000 to 25,000 years), but the flood would had to have occurred prior to anyone crossing on a land mass since they had to have been descendants of Noah and his sons.

Due to the issues with certain dates that are clearly given, issues with the chronological order within genealogies and issues with deriving dates from genealogies, one cannot rely on genealogies to give an accurate date as to the age of the Earth.

Enough said. We need to turn our attention now to the Creation account.

 

[biblecatholic]

I don't know much science besides high school level.... but I wanted to comment that the world is older that 6000 years. from the scriptures.

the day was not created till the 4th day Gen 1:'14 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.


A day is like a thousand years

2 Peter 3:8 - But do not let this one {fact} escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like

"Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations...You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:1,3,4)

In Gen. 2:17, it says: "In the day you eat of the fruit of this tree you shall surely die." It is no coincidence that those who lived before the Flood died just short of a 1000 years of age. Thus figuratively speaking, Adam, and all his offspring before the flood, died within a "day"---that is, within a thousand years.

also a 1000 through out the scriptures is metaphorical meaning a really long time

 

[dad]

First problem: Zedekiah had been king (2 Kings 24:17) for 11 years when Jerusalem fell in 586ish. Counting back to when Rehoboam and Jeroboam became kings following Solomon’s death brings us to about 930 B.C.

So where is the problem there?

Based on the correction above, the start of the Temple is 967 B.C.

Great. So? I think there is a small margin of interpretative possibility. Who cares? Does it change it that much either way?

The problem here is that according to Paul (Acts 13:18-20) there were 590 years from the time of the Exodus to the start of the Temple. This puts us at 1557 B.C. If we used 1055 B.C., that would bring us to 1645 B.C. for the Exodus.

Same story as above. So?

Acts 7:6 puts the date at 400 years, although that could just be for a nice round approximate number. Going with 430 years puts Abraham entering Canaan to about 1987 B.C. to 2075 B.C.

Well, unless we have a serious difference, I see no need to weigh in on one side or the other here.

Exo 6:16 These are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, the years of the life of Levi being 137 years.
Exo 6:17 The sons of Gershon: Libni and Shimei, by their clans.
Exo 6:18 The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, the years of the life of Kohath being 133 years.
Exo 6:19 The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. These are the clans of the Levites according to their generations.
Exo 6:20 Amram took as his wife Jochebed his father's sister, and she bore him Aaron and Moses, the years of the life of Amram being 137 years.

Looking at Gen. 46:11, Kohath was born prior to the Israelites decent into Egypt, 430 years prior to the Exodus. Since Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus, that puts a minimum of 350 years between Kohath and Moses, so he could not have been Moses’ grandfather.

So?

Also, here it appears that Moses is the great-grandson of Leviâ€â€4 generations from Levi to Moses. Levi was Jacob’s son and Joseph’s brother. However, 1 Chr. 7:22-27 shows something different:
1Ch 7:22 And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him.
1Ch 7:23 And Ephraim went in to his wife, and she conceived and bore a son. And he called his name Beriah, because disaster had befallen his house.
1Ch 7:24 His daughter was Sheerah, who built both Lower and Upper Beth-horon, and Uzzen-sheerah.
1Ch 7:25 Rephah was his son, Resheph his son, Telah his son, Tahan his son,
1Ch 7:26 Ladan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son,
1Ch 7:27 Nun his son, Joshua his son.

Ephraim is Joseph’s son and we have 10 generations from Ephraim to Joshua. It is now more than obvious that the genealogy in Ex. 6 is an abbreviated version.

Do you see the problem with assuming that genealogies make chronologies? This is only one of several glaring examples.

No, I don't. The years from Adam on down are recorded, within a small margin of interpretive allowance.

Born approx. 2062 B.C. to 2150 B.C. And this is as accurate as we can get since, as has already been shown, genealogies do not necessarily represent an accurate chronology.

So, what, a 10 year difference? Who cares? I don't see billions of years in there.

This is a larger problem since all that is said about the date of Abraham’s birth is that after his "father" was 70, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. There is no date given to when Abram was born and the names may not even be in chronological order.

Yeah, that is one area where I was thinking, in particular, but the margin of interpretation is small.

The main problem with this argument is the assumption that the genealogies in Genesis are in chronological order; careful study has already shown that this is not necessarily the case.

Gen 5:32 After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
It seems that Ham is older than Japheth.

Gen 9:24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him,
The reference is to Ham--the youngest.

Ah, whether they were triplets, or some other mix, it doesn't matter much. It doesn't change the age to the flood much.

Ezr 7:6 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses that the LORD the God of Israel had given, and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was on him.

Interesting that a skilled scribe would omit some names from his genealogical tree. I would argue that it was intentional by Ezra.

Well, I see you are into this stuff. Something tells me folks like Usher were somewhat on the ball on the details as well. Your tact seems to be to cast doubt on the general record keeping of the bible. Then, trying to use that to question the age of the earth, that is within a pretty narrow range.

Then we need to look at what version of bible you use, and what other experts say, etc etc. In the end, we would find that the bible came through history for very good reasons.

1Ch 26:24 and Shebuel the son of Gershom, son of Moses, was chief officer in charge of the treasuries.

Shebuel was around in the time of David, about 1000 B.C. but Gershom is the first son of Moses (Ex. 2:22).

So the question comes to mind, could these be different people?

Then there is the genealogy of Christ which omits 3 generations.

There were a few, one, some say was for Mary.

With all that in mind, we now come to anthropology. If modern dating is accurate,

It isn't. Period.

and that remains to be seen, then the dates given for man arriving in North America over some ort of land bridge come into play. Dates are quite wide ranging (a quick internet search yielded dates of 12,000 to 25,000 years), but the flood would had to have occurred prior to anyone crossing on a land mass since they had to have been descendants of Noah and his sons.

The dates are wrong wrong wrong! really. Not even close. They are radioactive decay dates, that assume a past in the same state as the present. But that is pure assumption. Aside from that, there are no dates of any consequence.

In the future, we will have a different universe, a new heavens. No death, or decaying, dying suns, and stars, etc then. So decay is a feature of our temporary universe. Not able to be assumed into the past. The real records only go about as far as Sumer, and Egypt. That was post flood, I would say.

Enough said. We need to turn our attention now to the Creation account.

We do?

 

[dad]

All that gibber jabber and NO PROOF!

Have you proof for something?

You have not shown anything of the sort, you have no proof and you want to get other people to offer their arguments so you can start nit-picking. Nobody agrees with you, so just give it up.

Agree with whatever you like. If they had an arguement worth it's salt, they would have no fear of someone looking at it.

It's no excuse if you're not aware of it, God made the Universe as it is, his creation is true and if you fail to realize that it is no excuse. Read what it said: Romans 1:20.

I am aware it does not exist, sorry you missed the point. The creation is not something that had to stay in the created state. In fact we are in a temporary universe state, says the bible, since it clearly says this will pass away, and new heavens come.

About your idea of Young Earth, it is not logical, nor is it correct... just plain WRONG.

Get serious. God's word is right.

And you are too deep here, to deep in YOUR OWN IMAGINATION. When you get in touch with reality, then we can go fishing together!

Great, whatever that means. If someone agrees with you it is reality?? Try presenting a case, and leave the decision on what is reality to the observer. So far you got nothin.

 

[love2live]

All that gibber jabber and NO PROOF!

Have you proof for something?

Your lack of understanding is my proof and Free just made an example of that.

Agree with whatever you like. If they had an arguement worth it's salt, they would have no fear of someone looking at it.

Your misunderstanding of both the Bible and science renders any argument worthless.

I am aware it does not exist, sorry you missed the point. The creation is not something that had to stay in the created state. In fact we are in a temporary universe state, says the bible, since it clearly says this will pass away, and new heavens come.

God created the Universe as it is, he will keep the same Universe on and he will keep the same Earth when the New Heavens come. God didn't need to have a different Universe to resurrect Christ, nor will he need a different one in order to resurrect others and bring them to heaven.

Great, whatever that means. If someone agrees with you it is reality?? Try presenting a case, and leave the decision on what is reality to the observer. So far you got nothin.

So far we have seen Free show you that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and I told you I will not get into this discussion with you, because you fail to understand reality.

 

[dad]

Your lack of understanding is my proof and Free just made an example of that.

Understanding what? An attitude? Anyone can get that.

Your misunderstanding of both the Bible and science renders any argument worthless.

So we should agree with you then, I see. Hey, you did not dare present a bible case I see, but resorted to little insults. That is fine. I might have dealt a little severely with your case, since it comes with an attitude anyhow. As fro Free's post, it was too big to deal with, and didn't change anything anyhow, so there is no need! I have said there is some room for interpretation. Who cares whether you come up with 6000 or 6400 years??? Or whatever dates you come up with? The point stands that the bible gives the age of the earth within a small margin of the unknown. Deal with it.

God created the Universe as it is,

I do not believe you, and the bible clearly indicates otherwise. That is absurd speculation, and unsupported in the extreme.

he will keep the same Universe on and he will keep the same Earth when the New Heavens come.

That is false, it will pass away, as we know it. The earth and stars will be here, but not in this state.

God didn't need to have a different Universe to resurrect Christ, nor will he need a different one in order to resurrect others and bring them to heaven.

No, but we will need the spiritual, as His body is both. We do not need to change the universe to do a local adding of the spiritual. Who said we did?? No one. Try and deal with what people say. I heard no one say the universe will change at the rapture.

So far we have seen Free show you that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong,

I just covered that, she never even addressed the issue. Nor did I see any data in her posts that alter the dates in any significant way. I suppose maybe you two simply never read the thread earlier on, cause I never claimed there was not a little room on the dates. That is silly.

and I told you I will not get into this discussion with you, because you fail to understand reality.

You don't own reality, or even a coherent case, that we can see so far. You own an attitude. You are very welcome to it. Don't feel any need to fragrance the thread with it. Really.

 

[love2live]

So we should agree with you then, I see. Hey, you did not dare present a bible case I see, but resorted to little insults. That is fine. I might have dealt a little severely with your case, since it comes with an attitude anyhow. As fro Free's post, it was too big to deal with, and didn't change anything anyhow, so there is no need! I have said there is some room for interpretation. Who cares whether you come up with 6000 or 6400 years??? Or whatever dates you come up with? The point stands that the bible gives the age of the earth within a small margin of the unknown. Deal with it.

You don't own reality, or even a coherent case, that we can see so far. You own an attitude. You are very welcome to it. Don't feel any need to fragrance the thread with it. Really.

As Free said, the references in the Bible cannot be used as a strict chronological map of the existence of the Universe. They are not strictly related to each other in an order which can be precisely defined... you are right, there is some room for interpretation, but your interpretation is dramatically erroneous. The Bible does many things but it does not provide a chronological road-map for the existence of the Earth. You would like it to be so, but the reality is just not as such.

Take it as you wish, with the attitude, without the attitude, you are still not closer to reality.

2 Peter 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."

 

[dad]

As Free said, the references in the Bible cannot be used as a strict chronological map of the existence of the Universe.

Of course they can, as along as by strict, you do not mean to the year. The possible room for interpretation is small. I don't see how that would help anyone with old ages in their bonnet at all.

They are not strictly related to each other in an order which can be precisely defined...

Precise enough to narrow down the time since Adam pretty close. Whether one choses to think Terah lived somewhere a bit longer, or etc or not!

you are right, there is some room for interpretation, but your interpretation is dramatically erroneous.

No, the age of the earth is to be believed or not, it is not in question. The margin of time one could interpret is all young earth. No way round it.

The Bible does many things but it does not provide a chronological road-map for the existence of the Earth. You would like it to be so, but the reality is just not as such.

Of course it does. Adam lived so many years ago, and we know when it was, within a small margin of error.

Take it as you wish, with the attitude, without the attitude, you are still not closer to reality.

Good. I will take it as I wish.

2 Peter 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."

So how long did Jesus die, or Jonah stay in the belly of a fish??? Thousands of years??? Context is important. A day is still a day, no matter if it can be used figuratively to show God is forever.