The Year of Creation

[Pard]

Please, do not argue creation or any such thing in here, go somewhere to do that. Stick to the OP, thanks.

I have been confronted, here and else where, with the idea that God never intended for us to extrapolate the age of the earth from the Bible.

Some have attempted to claim that a 6000 year earth is the invention of modern creationists who are attempting to push an agenda. This is a false claim. Jews have always taken the year of creation from the Bible, in fact their calendar year is based on the time since creation! Meany scholarly Jews and Christians from hundreds and thousands of years ago all would agree with our 6000 year earth.

When I was confronted with this idea I dismissed it, until said people decided they needed to attack me. I was told that I was an abomination to Christianity and the such and that I was twisting the Word of God to fit my agenda (guess they didn't realize I am 18 and it is summer... I have no agenda!). The attacks are not the problem, the idea that a 6000 year earth is twisting scripture is where I come up with a problem.

I dismissed it, writing them off as buffoons, and then I saw a post by westtexas. He was listing genealogies. This is when it occurred to me; "What's the point of listing an entire line of people, starting with Adam, and the years they lived?" And I knew the answer, "To know the year of creation."

So my question is... is it twisting scripture to take information that anyone with a Bible can find and adding them up to find the date of creation?

 

[Oats]

What does carbon dating show?

 

[XTruth]

Please, do not argue creation or any such thing in here, go somewhere to do that. Stick to the OP, thanks.

I have been confronted, here and else where, with the idea that God never intended for us to extrapolate the age of the earth from the Bible.

Some have attempted to claim that a 6000 year earth is the invention of modern creationists who are attempting to push an agenda. This is a false claim. Jews have always taken the year of creation from the Bible, in fact their calendar year is based on the time since creation! Meany scholarly Jews and Christians from hundreds and thousands of years ago all would agree with our 6000 year earth.

When I was confronted with this idea I dismissed it, until said people decided they needed to attack me. I was told that I was an abomination to Christianity and the such and that I was twisting the Word of God to fit my agenda (guess they didn't realize I am 18 and it is summer... I have no agenda!). The attacks are not the problem, the idea that a 6000 year earth is twisting scripture is where I come up with a problem.

I dismissed it, writing them off as buffoons, and then I saw a post by westtexas. He was listing genealogies. This is when it occurred to me; "What's the point of listing an entire line of people, starting with Adam, and the years they lived?" And I knew the answer, "To know the year of creation."

So my question is... is it twisting scripture to take information that anyone with a Bible can find and adding them up to find the date of creation?

Your not out of tune with the Word for doing this. Google how many Christian denominations there are and you'll find more than 38,000 (literally). This site is full of them. Look at the wisemen. They could be accused of date setting... no angels told them, they studied the stars and prophecy. Today, they would be called many harsh things by most Christians views

 

[seve]

The Bible does Not give the Earth's age in man's time. In God's time, Today is the 6th Day or Age. In man's time, the making of our own present physical world or "Big Bang" happened some 14 Billion years ago... in God's time, it was on the 3rd Day. This means that each of God's "Days" are some 5 Billion years in length. This means that the morning of the Creation was some 25-30 Billion years ago.

IOW, the outward expansion of our present Universe is some 15 Billion light years from it's beginning. The 1st Universe (Adam's world), which was destroyed by water, is beyond our Cosmos, which would make it more than 15 Billion light years away. Today's feeble scientists know of No matter which exists beyond the 15 Billion light years they can "see", today. The scientific age of this present world is in complete accord with Scripture.

God Bless

 

[Ashua]

What does carbon dating show?

Good question. It shows:


1. Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963 pp. 634-637).
2. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211).
3. Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61).
4. One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000. (Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
5. One part of Dima, a baby frozen mammoth, was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old†(Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
6. The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (Radio Carbon Years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. (Harold E. Anthony, Natures Deep Freeze. Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300).
7. The two Colorado Creek, AK Mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 and 16,150 respectively. (Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska. Quaternary Research, vol. 37, no. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228).
8. Living Penguins have been dated as being 8,000 years old.
9. Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old. (R. Daly, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, p. 280).
10. Russian scientists Kusnetsov and Ivanov carbon dated dinosaur bones at less than 30,000 years. (Strange Stores, Amazing Facts, Readers Digest, 1978, p. 335).
11. Hugh Miller, Columbus, OH had 4 dinosaur one samples carbon dated at 20,000 years old. The samples were not identified as dinosaur in advance. (Noah to Abram the Turbulent Years by Erich von Fange, p. 36).
12. A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, Carl Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens; erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years (the difference between these two years is a 96% error rate) – a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans. (Leslie Kaufman, Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us? Newsweek, December 23, 1996, p. 52).


Trust in that voo-doo "science" if you wish.
My apologies to the original poster. His question demanded an answer from the truth.

 

[jasoncran]

you could have pm'd oats that answer so that this thread doenst go to far into a evo debate.

but lets look at the bible and take it for what is being conveyed and not have a creationist or evolutionist bias and see what is being revealed.

hard for both sides to do, but what do we have to loose? nothing as we really dont know how god did create. all is a theory and open to change. thats if we are honest.

again lets not get into the science side but look at what the bible really is saying.

 

[logical bob]

Please, do not argue creation or any such thing in here, go somewhere to do that. Stick to the OP, thanks.

The evidence that the world is not 6000 years old is overwhelming. We can certainly set that to one side here, but remember that if we do that we're only discussing what the Bible says, not what's actually true.

Some have attempted to claim that a 6000 year earth is the invention of modern creationists who are attempting to push an agenda. This is a false claim.

You can certainly find people writing about a young earth a long time ago. That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a modern agenda being pushed now.

Jews have always taken the year of creation from the Bible, in fact their calendar year is based on the time since creation!

It seems to have been a long standing subject of debate among Jewish scholars. Some calculated a young earth date from the Torah while others held that Scripture should not be interpreted literally.

"What's the point of listing an entire line of people, starting with Adam, and the years they lived?" And I knew the answer, "To know the year of creation."

People have found all kinds of meanings in the numbers included in the Torah, some literal and some cryptic. Since the LXX and the Masoretic Text disagree by about 1500 years we can't even say for sure what the numbers originally were. We may need to accept that we can't know the intentions of ancient authors for certain.

So my question is... is it twisting scripture to take information that anyone with a Bible can find and adding them up to find the date of creation?

I realize you don’t want to debate creation here, but there’s no escaping the fact that if the Bible authors did want to tell their readers that the earth is 6000 years old then they were wrong.

By the way, you said you’d get back to me in the “Dating the Flood†thread on the question of why the death of everyone in the world except for 8 people is glaringly absent from the detailed historical record we have for Egypt for centuries either side of when you say it happened.

 

[logical bob]

I wanted to respond to Ashua's Kent Hovind cut and paste there, but to avoid derailing this thread further I've done so here.

 

[jasoncran]

bob, we dont believe that men wrote that by themselves but that they were told to write, mainly genesis.

btw since we believe that God created, who's to say that God didnt make it fully formed having the appearence of age when in fact it wasnt old at all.

that word study on adam and eve on the word barah is interesting it says that the authors used create as to make from nothing for adam but not eve.

surely the big bang has to start somewhere, or did it just appear suddenly from nothing?

 

[watchman F]

Please, do not argue creation or any such thing in here, go somewhere to do that. Stick to the OP, thanks.

I have been confronted, here and else where, with the idea that God never intended for us to extrapolate the age of the earth from the Bible.

Some have attempted to claim that a 6000 year earth is the invention of modern creationists who are attempting to push an agenda. This is a false claim. Jews have always taken the year of creation from the Bible, in fact their calendar year is based on the time since creation! Meany scholarly Jews and Christians from hundreds and thousands of years ago all would agree with our 6000 year earth.

When I was confronted with this idea I dismissed it, until said people decided they needed to attack me. I was told that I was an abomination to Christianity and the such and that I was twisting the Word of God to fit my agenda (guess they didn't realize I am 18 and it is summer... I have no agenda!). The attacks are not the problem, the idea that a 6000 year earth is twisting scripture is where I come up with a problem.

I dismissed it, writing them off as buffoons, and then I saw a post by westtexas. He was listing genealogies. This is when it occurred to me; "What's the point of listing an entire line of people, starting with Adam, and the years they lived?" And I knew the answer, "To know the year of creation."

So my question is... is it twisting scripture to take information that anyone with a Bible can find and adding them up to find the date of creation?

No it is not

 

[watchman F]

What does carbon dating show?

Its irrelevant, Carbon dating has been proven unreliable while the bible has been proven a reliable source of accurate information over and over again

 

[watchman F]

What does carbon dating show?

Good question. It shows:


1. Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963 pp. 634-637).
2. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211).
3. Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61).
4. One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000. (Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
5. One part of Dima, a baby frozen mammoth, was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old†(Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
6. The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (Radio Carbon Years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. (Harold E. Anthony, Natures Deep Freeze. Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300).
7. The two Colorado Creek, AK Mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 and 16,150 respectively. (Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska. Quaternary Research, vol. 37, no. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228).
8. Living Penguins have been dated as being 8,000 years old.
9. Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old. (R. Daly, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, p. 280).
10. Russian scientists Kusnetsov and Ivanov carbon dated dinosaur bones at less than 30,000 years. (Strange Stores, Amazing Facts, Readers Digest, 1978, p. 335).
11. Hugh Miller, Columbus, OH had 4 dinosaur one samples carbon dated at 20,000 years old. The samples were not identified as dinosaur in advance. (Noah to Abram the Turbulent Years by Erich von Fange, p. 36).
12. A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, Carl Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens; erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years (the difference between these two years is a 96% error rate) – a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans. (Leslie Kaufman, Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us? Newsweek, December 23, 1996, p. 52).


Trust in that voo-doo "science" if you wish.
My apologies to the original poster. His question demanded an answer from the truth.

You confuse with truth. Jesus Christ said He was the truth the way and the life. Anything that opposes his word is not truth.

 

[Pard]

MA,

If you do a quick Google search you will find plenty of 1AD Jews who believed in a young earth 4000 years I guess, back then.

 

[logical bob]

bob, we dont believe that men wrote that by themselves but that they were told to write, mainly genesis.

However Genesis was written and whoever wrote it, the world still isn't 6000 years old.

btw since we believe that God created, who's to say that God didnt make it fully formed having the appearence of age when in fact it wasnt old at all.

It would be a strange and deceitful god who would tell such an elaborate lie.

Who's to say the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago and we all appeared with a set of false memories of a life that didn't happen?

that word study on adam and eve on the word barah is interesting it says that the authors used create as to make from nothing for adam but not eve.

Hebrew's not my strong point, but I thought Adam was formed out of earth and Eve from his rib. Neither were created from nothing.

surely the big bang has to start somewhere, or did it just appear suddenly from nothing?

However it happened, it wasn't 6000 years ago.

 

[Theofilus]

btw since we believe that God created, who's to say that God didnt make it fully formed having the appearence of age when in fact it wasnt old at all.

It would be a strange and deceitful god who would tell such an elaborate lie.

Not at all. It just shows that He's consistant. When Adam and Eve were created, they could talk and were able to have children. God didn't create infants, but grown people. The animals were also told to "be fruitful and multiply". They were adult animals. The trees were already bearing fruit. He didn't create seeds, but mature trees. The universe itself was created with the appearance of age. Although they are many lightyears away, the stars and galaxies were already visible, as if the light had been travelling for millions of years. If everything else was created with the appearance of age, why should the earth be an exception.

 

[Ashua]

What does carbon dating show?

Good question. It shows:


1. Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963 pp. 634-637).
2. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211).
3. Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61).
4. One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000. (Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
5. One part of Dima, a baby frozen mammoth, was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old†(Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
6. The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (Radio Carbon Years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. (Harold E. Anthony, Natures Deep Freeze. Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300).
7. The two Colorado Creek, AK Mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 and 16,150 respectively. (Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska. Quaternary Research, vol. 37, no. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228).
8. Living Penguins have been dated as being 8,000 years old.
9. Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old. (R. Daly, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, p. 280).
10. Russian scientists Kusnetsov and Ivanov carbon dated dinosaur bones at less than 30,000 years. (Strange Stores, Amazing Facts, Readers Digest, 1978, p. 335).
11. Hugh Miller, Columbus, OH had 4 dinosaur one samples carbon dated at 20,000 years old. The samples were not identified as dinosaur in advance. (Noah to Abram the Turbulent Years by Erich von Fange, p. 36).
12. A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, Carl Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens; erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years (the difference between these two years is a 96% error rate) – a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans. (Leslie Kaufman, Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us? Newsweek, December 23, 1996, p. 52).


Trust in that voo-doo "science" if you wish.
My apologies to the original poster. His question demanded an answer from the truth.

You confuse with truth. Jesus Christ said He was the truth the way and the life. Anything that opposes his word is not truth.

You should probably have read my post before you said that. The post shows how unreliable and 'open to skew' carbon dating is.

 

[logical bob]

It would be a strange and deceitful god who would tell such an elaborate lie.

Not at all. It just shows that He's consistant.

If the universe is 6000 years old and God had that written in the Bible because he wants us to know it then why would he have created the universe so that it looks exactly like it's 13.7 billion years old? If he wanted us to know that it was 6000 years old, why would he say so in just one place and then deliberately hide that fact everywhere else?

Is it some kind of test in the spirit of 1984's doublethink? Are we to prove our devotion by managing to believe something that's obviously false?

As Galilieo says it my signature, what it achieves is distress and ultimately loss of faith among those who want to believe but can't bring themselves to hand their brain in at the church door.

 

[logical bob]

The problem is summed up in Pard's OP request that we avoid debating creationism. That leaves you with a discussion about the biblical dating of creation that specifically excludes the real world from consideration. If you deliberately ignore the real world at the beginning of the discussion it's no wonder your conclusions are out of step with reality.

I appreciate you get here through a sincere belief that the Bible is a book of truth. But because of that belief, you're insisting that it must contain false statements! You need to find a way to interpret the Bible that doesn't involve a 6000 year old earth because the earth just is not 6000 years old. To paraphrase Paul, this is understood from what has been made and all men are without excuse.

 

[Theofilus]

[quote="logical bob":3tflulot]It would be a strange and deceitful god who would tell such an elaborate lie.

Not at all. It just shows that He's consistant.

If the universe is 6000 years old and God had that written in the Bible because he wants us to know it then why would he have created the universe so that it looks exactly like it's 13.7 billion years old? If he wanted us to know that it was 6000 years old, why would he say so in just one place and then deliberately hide that fact everywhere else?

Is it some kind of test in the spirit of 1984's doublethink? Are we to prove our devotion by managing to believe something that's obviously false?

As Galilieo says it my signature, what it achieves is distress and ultimately loss of faith among those who want to believe but can't bring themselves to hand their brain in at the church door.[/quote:3tflulot]

Did you actually read my post, or did you just see from the first few words that I disagreed with you and didn't bother to read the rest? I would expect a man who chooses to have the word "logical" in his user name to be able to see the logical consistancy I pointed out in my earlier post. The answer to your question is in my previous post. Re-read it and see if you can't figure it out.

 

[logical bob]

Yes of course I read your post.

The universe itself was created with the appearance of age. Although they are many lightyears away, the stars and galaxies were already visible, as if the light had been travelling for millions of years.

And so I asked why a God who wanted us to know that the universe was 6000 years old would create it so that it looks older.

As for this "logical consistency" with mature people, animals and trees being created, the two are consistent only in that they are both contradicted by the evidence. We know that modern animals and plant evolved from earlier species in a continuous process. The first ones did not appear fully formed.