|
LeoWong Member Posts: 100 From: Registered: 02-27-2004 |
For Rachel Abrams. Some notable dates: Creation. Year 0 \ Sunday, September 6, 3761 BCE Adam 0 - 930 Birth of Ishmael 2034 Alive the year of Methuselah's birth (687): Alive the year of the Flood (1656): Alive the year of Abram's birth (1948): Alive the year Abram leaves Haran (2023):
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
It should be noted that this chart assumes a direct father-to-son relationship. It is a common Jewish practice when writing genealogies to only include "famous" people yet still list them as father to son. Unfortunately the comprehensive genealogies were lost in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Never mind that the Jews lost track of their own calendar when in Babylonian captivity. In any case, I'm not saying that you can somehow fit 4.5 billion years in there. But it is possible the Earth may be a couple hundred thousand years old. I have an extremely hard time seeing more than a million years, though. |
Crptc_Prgrmr Member Posts: 169 From: Registered: 02-05-2002 |
Ross also points out that father can mean grandfather or ancestor, while son can mean grandson or descendant. But Ross again errs by unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic field.10 The Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies say that X ‘begat sons and daughters’ implying that Z is likewise a son of X in this specific context. And even if we grant that Z is a descendant of X, Z is always preceded by the accusative particle ’et, which is not translated but marks Z as the direct object of the verb ‘begat’ (wayyoled). This means that the begetting of Z by X still occurred when X was Y years old, regardless of whether Z was a son or a more distant descendant. The Hebrew grammar provides further support — wayyoled is the hiphil waw-consecutive imperfect form of the Hebrew verb yalad. The waw-consecutive is the typical Hebrew way to indicate a sequence of events (see Doug Kelly interview), and the hiphil stem communicates the subject participating in action that causes an event e.g. Seth as the begetter of Enosh. No wonder the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 37/38–c. 100) saw no gaps in the genealogy.21,22 excerpted from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp#genealogies
------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
I wish it was that simple as they make it out to be. Unfortunately Answers in Genesis is not a resource I consider to be reliable (though they're not nearly as bad as Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe!). They often fail to include data that contradicts their assertions. In this case at least, based upon what I've read on the subject, there is room for reasonable doubt. I still believe it's most likely that the Earth is around 6000-10,000 but it's still "possible" for a slightly longer length of time. AiG is right in saying that the genealogies do NOT leave room for Ross's interpretation. There is a little wiggle room but not that much! [This message has been edited by Gump (edited July 01, 2004).] |
|
Crptc_Prgrmr Member Posts: 169 From: Registered: 02-05-2002 |
AiG does give contradictory evidences, so I consider them reliable. Estimating the age of the earth through the geneologies is not exact or simple, so there is wiggle room. I'm just saying (as I believe AiG is as they do elsewhere) that there aren't the supposed gaps that people try to fit in. They have a more technical look at the geneologies at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv12n1_chronology.asp ------------------ |
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
AiG is rather inconsistent in their reliability. Every once in a while, they put in a good technical article, but lately, it's been mostly "feel-good" articles (Look! We've made progress on our museum!) and an occasional reply to a feedback letter. Not much in the way of actual creationist science lately, unfortunately. Their Q&A section is starting to get a bit outdated, they're not putting much information on the latest evolutionary claims. I'm looking for something a bit more up to date. Anybody know of a good, up to date site? ------------------ Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here |
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
why doesn't anybody bother just asking the God who made the earth, and of course when he did it. and whose spirit abides within our very beings? ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Let's put it this way... I know someone who swears the Holy Spirit told him that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that God used evolution to make everything. EDIT: Not saying I believe that guy, btw. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited July 04, 2004).] |
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
He seems to have a lotta faith in his interpretation of the Spirit ------------------ |
bennythebear Member Posts: 1225 From: kentucky,usa Registered: 12-13-2003 |
he needs to understand the difference between his voice, the devils voice, and GOD's voice. whether or not the world has been around a few million years i'm not going to argue on. but i will say if the word of GOD says it was created in 7 days, then it was. if you're going to argue with one part of teh bible, or just believe one part, then you might as well do it with the rest, and thus you can't fully rely on CHRIST's death and resurrection, and you have no basis for your faith. where most people make their mistake is they try to make the bible fit their beliefs, instead of basing their beliefs on the bible. here's some food for thought, if death came after sin, then that means every animal at herbs, or something of the sort at the begining of creation. ------------------ |
JohnMcLernon_77 Member Posts: 11 From: Northern Ireland Registered: 05-31-2004 |
First I'd like to agree that arguing over certain parts of the Bible isn't good. If you question the validity of God's Word in one place you question it in another. The devil is trying to destroy Christianity and the Bible. He is doing it now with this stuff about evolution and the age of the earth. I'm no expert but this I do know. Just a couple of points. - Carbon dating isn't accurate beyond 4-5,000 years. Below are a couple of links to very good seminars on the subject. ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
quote: 1. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-364.htm |
|
JohnMcLernon_77 Member Posts: 11 From: Northern Ireland Registered: 05-31-2004 |
quote: The second law of thermodynamics says that things go from orderd to caos. From more complex to less complex. Like if get a brand new car and leave it sitting outside in the rain, through time the nice shiney car will turn into a rust bucket and will eventually (if left over time) will dicintigrate(spelt wrong). To say that we started of as nothing, then microscoptic 1 celled organisms and now to such complex life forms is impossible due to that fact. The more time you add, the more caotic the system becomes. ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
I've written some things on the subject of entropy so I'm fairly familiar with the current state of that argument. I was merely pointing out to you that you can't make such a broad statement to an atheist without having the knowledge to back it up. BTW, this is how the typical argument goes: Stalemate. On a side note, apparently the driving reason for the physicists who came up with these theories is to derive a mathematical model by which God does not have to exist. And that's by their own words (I can't remember where I read that though; sorry). They know that any of the cosmological models (including the Big Bang) require an intelligent creator. Even astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, who has attempted to escape the necessity for a beginning, said the following: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator." Supposedly Hawking is currently trying to figure out a way that spacetime could wrap in on itself so that the "cosmic egg" could have been in some odd state before the Big Bang that also didn't require the egg to be created. Or something like that. I've never put much serious thought into that idea. Especially since it assumes the current Big Bang model, which has some serious holes of its own (not to say that there is a perfect cosmological model out there). [This message has been edited by Gump (edited July 06, 2004).] |