I am a Christian and i know the Earth is very old, older the 6000 years. Lets see what the Bible says about this.
Genesis Ch 1 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.(period)
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The word "WAS" translates in the Hebrew (haw-yaw) which means "To become" So Versus 2 should be read, And the earth "became void.
If it became Void there had to be something here that was destroyed. This show that some time pass between versus 1&2 (Could be thousands or millions of years)
Psalms 104 talks about a flood that destroyed the earth and its inhabitance. This could not be Noah’s flood because Noah’s flood took months to recede. In psalms 104:7 God tells the water to recede and it receded immediately. It did not take months.
In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam to go and replenish the earth. If you are replenish something there had to be something there prior to this.
In 2 Corinthians 12:2 It talks about John Being Caught up to the 3rd heaven age (Revelation 21 where it talks about a new heaven and a new earth.) This is after the Satan is thrown into the pit.
So the First Heaven & earth age was when Satan tried to over throw God. That age was destroyed
The second began with Adam.
The 3rd will begin in the eternity when Satan is thrown into the lake of fire and heaven and earth is renew
This earth age is possibly between 6000-13000 years old
There is so much more info but this is a good conversation starter.
The Bible never gives a specific date to how old the Earth is, the young earth movement is partially derived from adding up all the ages of the people who lived in the Bible from Adam and Eve up. Personally I wouldn't get my idea of how old the Earth is from a story that involves creating people from ribs and talking snakes. We have scientific measurements which prove the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old. The creation accounts in Genesis, there are 2 different ones, are likely derived from earlier Sumerian or Babylonian myths as there are some similarities between the two creation stories.
Geneses follows the Babylonian/Sumerian myth, Enuma Elish, almost to the T. The Babylonian myth was written on seven clay tablets - each representing one day of creation. Genesis also starts off in classic Babylonian format. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" is not a statement, it's the title of the sentence or heading. The Hebrew Bible points this out. So basically in verse 2, the earth was already here, but formless. The Enuma Elish says the same thing. It also says that the gods got tired of man's annoyance and they destroyed all mankind with a flood. But one man was told to build a big boat to save his family plus all the animals of the field.
The story of creation as told in Genesis is an allegory, therefore it gives no dates, and is completely compatible with theories such as evolution.
I think that statement has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a very long time.
There is absolutely no correlation between Evolutionary theory and the story of creation as told in Genesis.
In fact the Genesis version has more holes in it than my socks !!!
To me this just seems a half assed attempt to try and give some sort of credibility to Bible stories when compared to real science and modern day fact.
I'm afraid you are mistaken Merlin. Yes, indeed, the Shakespeare "Wholly By Bill" version that King James commissioned various poets at the time to "sex up" is riddled with grotesque inaccuracies and miss-quotations. And therefore I can see why you would think The Bible is more or less a fictional story book. Please however consider that the original (and complete) translations in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek do correspond quite accurately. One example I can think of straight away is that in Genesis the word later replaced by day was originally the Hebrew word Yom, which literally translates as AGE not day. So right away we can see how this corresponds with a Scientific view of the formation process of the Earth and its age. Anyone that believes that the bible is trying to suggest that the days it refers to are modern 24-hour earth days has been cruelly deceived. There is NO case or shred of plausible evidence for a young Earth theory, and the Bible certainly does not support such ignorance. No where does it say in the Bible that the Earth is either yougn, neither does it tell us this is an important factor, neither does it assert that it is at all relevant in anyway, therefore, any Christian that supports this theory is following the ideology of assumptive time-wasting humans, that are doing more to discredit the Bible than actually promote its positive spiritual message. The Bible does however tell us that a day to God can be thousands of years to a human and that a day for a human can be a thousand years for God. The Earth is far more ancient that the laughable 6,000 years theory, Case Closed! Peace
Evolutionary theory has many holes in it also,if your socks have holes in then, darn them or replace them,similarly with your thesis my friend.
What are the holes in the theory of evolution?
There would be more holes in the Religious story, that's why they have holy wars over imaginary friends.
Hi,well to just think about missing so called link in man,the discoveries of links,which were hybrid of animal and human remains. If you dont want to believe in intelligent design is one thing but believe a lie is another. In the end evolutionary theory and creationists theory are just that. I use my imagination with,reason.
Australopithecus africanus is a species of australopithecines that are believed to be man's earliest ancestors, but which are commonly viewed by creationists as being merely apes.
My source was from creation wiki (quotes)
Homo erectus is the species name assigned to human fossils that evolutionists claim are transitional forms between australopithecines (apes) and both Neanderthals and modern humans. To date, more than 280 fossil individuals have been found that are identified with this group. The species name means “erect or upright man” and was the name first put forth by Ernst Mayr to unify the classification of Asian fossils.
Creationists generally agree that all supposed ape-men fossils are, in fact, either ape or fully human. Species names within the taxonomic genus homo are viewed as fabricated classes invented to support evolutionary theory, and should be regarded as mere instruments of propaganda. The majority of Homo erectus fossils represent the populations of humans that lived following the global flood and the Tower of Babel, and should be considered true Homo sapiens.
I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know which side of the evolutionary debate you sit on, but describing evolutionary theory and creationism as both "theories" suggests they are equivalents, which is misleading.
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, i.e. it is a well substantiated explanation, acquired by the use of scientific method, that is accepted by the majority of subject matter experts as the best explanation of a collection of natural phenomena known as evolution. Creationism is a collection of ideas, ranging from literal readings of Genesis (including talking snakes etc.) to the simple belief that life originated from a divine being.
I don't know if it's intentional, but by equating evolutionary theory with creationism, you are misrepresenting creationism as science. Non scientific ideas that are misrepresented as science are, by definition, pseudoscience. That would be a more accurate description of creationism. Pseudoscience should not be given the same scientific importance as scientific theory.
Both points of view,either for evolution or creation are based on scientific methods,my thoughts of intelligent design are based on science fact not fiction,literature.
Evolution is taught at scientific fact not a theory,which it is.
I have already. Think you can't accept the data.
You have? I don't think so. You haven't even presented an argument, let alone evidence.
No argument,no evidence,both theories can not be proven. Both are faith driven ideas. Leaps of faith to match. Ok,I have previously stated evolution theory of man has holes in it due to scientific evidence being presented was cross species (ape,man) and assumptions mankind evolved so from hey something that looks similar,must be related to us as a species. Didn't Charles Darwin refute his orgins of the species at the end of his life!? My concern is evolution is taught in schools,educational institutions as irrefutable fact when its an idea,theory.
Creation scientist are not laymen they have PHD's,so can't be just ignored,dismissed as ignorant,uneducated people.
I have presented best I can,my ideas believe system.
I don't wear white suits also try as some may dismiss me.
I'm not going to change my options,its up to others to explore other theory's.
As for other who state I'm wrong,please that sounds like language used in the playground.
Best to say I agree! To disagree with evolutionary theory,why? Because it just wants to exclude the though of intelligent design,for the deity of so called science. Have you looked into creation,dare to think they maybe a God? There are many scientist who have now changed there ideas,lifes,why? Looking into the evolutionary theory with new vision,realising isn't not true! Lies! Nothing I present here will convince you we with the blinkers on you now. Its presented,you don't want to acknowledge it. Not my issue now. Thanks.
I question is it really survival of the fittest or just survival of the luckiest!
You are wrong. Fundamental to Creationism is the belief that a supernatural being created the universe and everything in it. Such a theory is necessarily outside the scope of scientific method, which is only concerned with natural phenomena.
The principles of Creationism, as characterized by creationists, have not been acquired through scientific method but supposedly through "divine revelation". Specifically, revelation in the form of a book written at the time of the Bronze Age, commonly known as The Bible. Once again, this is necessarily outside the scope of science.
Intelligent design is a form of creationism, and a variant on the "argument from design", which is a theological argument, not a scientific one. It generates no falsifiable hypotheses. As such, by definition, it is not science.
The term "theory" has a specific meaning in science that is not the same as in everyday language. There is no equivalence between evolutionary theory and creationism. Scientific theory refers to the current best explanation of a phenomenon, based on the principles of scientific method. That's why relativity, which has been widely and repeatedly substantiated, is referred to as the theory of relativity. Likewise the theory of electrodynamics, the theory of gravity etc. Not only does a scientific theory need to be well substantiated, but also repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. The theory of evolution, relativity etc are all of the above. Creationism is none of the above. Once again, by definition, Creationism is not scientific theory.
You are confusing the facts of evolution and the theory of evolution. All scientific theories are necessarily supported by scientific facts. The scientific facts that support evolutionary theory are sometimes referred to as the facts of evolution. The difference can be explained as: scientific facts are what we can objectively observe. Scientific theory is the current best explanation of those observations, based on the principles of scientific method. Creationism offers no explanation based on the principles of scientific method. Therefore it can not only be discounted as scientific theory, but also as science. Misrepresenting it as science, only reinforces it status as pseudoscience, which by definition is: "A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method".
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin … udoscience
That means the christian science guy, with the white lab coat, on youtube, is wrong.
Still good for laughs.
The bible is used to contest the belief of the evolutionary theory. As a base line,plumb line if you please,then the creationist scientific community as used the methods of science to prove the holes in evolutionary theory. Not based on a book of literature however,on scientific research. There are papers,books,presentations of these findings. I would recommend,Alister McGrath's excellent book,Dawkins God.
Trying to make "scientific" claims to support an unscientific premise does not make that premise any less unscientific. And the Bible is not just a "plumb line" for Creationism. The whole premise of Creationism comes from the Bible, which is claimed to be the word of god. That means for Creationists, their view literally cannot be wrong. In contrast, science is falsifiable. Scientific hypotheses are discarded for others if they are better substantiated. Can a claim supposedly based on the word of god be falsified? If yes, then clearly it is not the word of god. If no, then it is not a scientific claim.
Dawkin's God, which I have read, in no way substantiates Creationism. If you think it does, read it again. For a start, McGrath supports the theory of evolution. The point of the book is to refute claims made by Richard Dawkins about religion. Specifically the notion that science proves god does not exist. McGrath rightly points out that science can do no such thing, because the existence of god is not a scientific claim. That is exactly my point also. The existence (or not) of a supernatural being, and the claim that such a being created the universe, are not scientific claims. Science cannot speak to unscientific claims.
This video (which includes McGrath among other Christians) gives a good idea of why it is a mistake to read the Book of Genesis literally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM
I do not think there is any specific date as to creation of the earth or universe..?
Passingtheword: I have never seen anywhere in the Holy Bible where it states the age of the earth or how long it existed.
I will explain something of interest to you. The Bible does tell us that Adam the first human lived to be over 960 years old. That is over 9 centuries plus.
Some people have speculated that the reason people may have lived centuries more than we do now is because there may have been a layer of water in the Earth's atmosphere that blocked harmful rays and gasses from the Sun but may have been removed when GOD flooded the Earth (With Noah and the Ark) and were used to create this flood. So we may have more exposure to those things than we used to so we live a lot shorter lives. This is just speculation and I don't believe I know something for sure until it is revieled to me by the LORD.
There are also theories that there was a higher concentration of oxygen, and obviously less pollution. Combining those with the thicker "newer" ozone layer. I wouldn't rule out a layer of humidity at a high altitude as well, it's plausible. Thing is the bible is a book of allegories, stories to try to make sense of what happened. The creation allegory gives a basic outline, it doesn't cover every day, or every step. It was not intended to be a road map of how it was done, just a quick explanation THAT it was done. If you read into the bible it says Adam was the first man, and Eve was the first woman. It doesn't say they were the only ones God created. As a matter of fact the stories tell of Adam and Eve leaving the garden and meeting up with other people. These had to either be previous beings that were similar to humans or more of God's creations.
People use the genealogy as well as archeology to age the earth from a biblical standpoint. However the arguments you present are just a way for you to fit the age of the earth into your own interruption. Either to fit some scientific model or a doctrine etc. You should just believe what it says and not rely on your own understanding.
The Bible, in its Present State, is a Compendium of the books of holy Scriptures ... mainly 39 Hebrew, and 27 Greek, with 14 books of the Apocrypha etc.. At least, this was the State of the Bible, in early 20th Century.
The Old Testament ... Contains the Law, while the new Testament, contains the Gospels, along with matters such as Epistles, Apostolic Acts etc.. The Hebrew Manuscript of the 9th century A.D, and the Greek Manuscript of the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. are thus, the basis of the Extant.
Besides the English version, there are the Greek, and Latin versions of Biblical Scriptures, compiled by Priests, Rabis, and Religious Scholars.
The "Authorized Version" ... St. James Version, was issued in 1611 A.D. England, and later Revised in the 19th century.
In Christianity, there are many Churches of other denominations, viz. the Russian Orthodox, and the Papal and other Biblical Councils, the Ethiopian Church etc., they have also been involved in safeguarding, and Bringing the Content of the Bible, to the state, what they Think, is the Correct Version of The Word of God.
There are a large number of still smaller Denominations, with their own views on the Subject of Religion, and the Content of Belief, like the Branch Dravidian, the Mormons, and the Amish, the Quakers besides, the Latter day Scientiologists ...
The main body of Christians follow the Roman Catholic Church ... Rome is their Mecca, which exists along with such as Martin Luther's Protestantism, Unitarianism, the present day Gay Church, and Churches sanctioning, Abortion, the Marriage of Priests, and Women Priests and Bishops etc..
The Fact, however, is that the Old and New Testaments ... Though Containing The Word of God ... are the Stated, of the Apostles and Saints of God ... First in Aramaic, then, in Hebrew, then Greek, and then Latin, and now, in many different languages and Dialects..
But Bible, like other holy Scriptures, is not a "Textbook" of History, Archeology, or Geology etc.. Its the attempted Stating, of the Exact Words of God ... Are you with me ...
Now if, a version of the Bible, says, that the earth is 6000 years old ... or 13000 years old ... its the Exegetist, meaning, the Interpretor, who in all sincerity, is saying so ... within his limited resources, so that all people can understand.
Because, it is certainly not God, saying 6000 years. Because, God Transcends Matter, Time, Space, and Energy ...
The Lord ... Lays down The Law, and at the most Talks In Allegory or the Parable. So don't be critical of whats been stated in Exegesis ... no harm was meant by the Exegetist, translating, or Interpreting the Scriptures at his disposal ...
Finally, the Torah, the Bible, and al'Quran ... are not Words, that can be opened for Public discussions, at the fancy of individuals ... In my opinion we can try Understand the Spirit of the Matter, than be critical of the words of Interpretors. For such will only add to the already highly volatile subject of Religious Beliefs.
Without doing the exact math, I don't think anyone here cares THAT much... however, taking the Bible literally, it says... and the evening and the morning were the first day - that shows us a setting sun and a rising sun - which I think is reasonable to what we call a day in our modern understanding.
Then on the 6th day God created man.
Then we follow the lineage and age of Adam clear down to Christ in Bethlehem, which from Adam to Christ was about 4000 years. Then from Christ to here... about 2000 years. Surely some biblical math guru has a more convincing date on literal biblical interpretation. Personally, it all boils down to this. God says salvation is by faith. If we could prove the age of the earth, then the need for faith is eliminated. God wants you to have faith because it pleases him. He doesn't want us to be robots that follow a path determined by test results.
Bible is not a math book; so why take it as a source of Mathematics.
Does Bible claim to be a book of Maths? It does not.
Day is a unit of period; it would be different on different planets.
In absolute time, it will be absolutely different.
[32:5] Allah it is Who created the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them, in six periods; then He settled on the Throne. You have no helper or intercessor beside Him. Will you not then reflect?
[32:6] He will plan the Divine Ordinance from the heaven unto the earth, then shall it go up to Him in a day the duration of which is a thousand years according to what you reckon.
[32:7] Such is the Knower of the unseen and the seen, the Mighty, the Merciful,
[32:8] Who has made perfect everything He has created. And He began the creation of man from clay.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … mp;verse=0
Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna were not sent to teach Mathematics; they were sent for human guidance in life, ethically, morally and spiritually.
They never claimed to be Mathematicians.
Closer to 13,000 if the time line is accurate.
But again, the time line of the Canopy/Vault to the Flood is unknown. As for the wipe out, imagine billions of gallon of water pouring from above while also from below. The immense water pressure could have fossilized anything in literally days.
If the text is correct, for an entire year, the water held level and then began to recede. Most humans would be crushed flat instantly, under the pressure of water at less than 60 meters. Imagine 8850 meters deep of pressure for an entire year plus a slow recession.
This is where, I believe, sciences aging system is off or not taking into consideration.
Is this why there are some artifacts about david that were recently found that aged around 10,000 years ago? Hmmm...
Given that David was the twelfth generation of Jacob, it would place him at 1,000 years before Immanu El and approximately 3,000 years from present time. So, 10,000 years would be a huge gap in the time line.
Given, the city of Jeru Salem sustained massive changes in structure, earth shifts, etc, it stands to reason the time line may not be perfect. But I think most agree 3500 to 3000 years is a fair time line. I am not aware of artifacts found that date back 10,000 years from David's direct lineage?! I would really like to see that. How cool!
It was just a piece of pottery that alluded to king David. I cannot find it, but it was such big news it was featured in Yahoo news late last year. I wish I could find it again. I remembered it because I was wondering about the aryans (Ayrans) who have pottery dating back 12,000 years ago. It could well be the flood as you said. but..hmm...i don't have a real opinion on it other than for now, i would go by believing the biblical year is symbolic.
I agree in the "year symbolic", because measures of "time" were different then. According to some things I have read, there is huge consideration of the Meso-Ioni spheres being that Canopy.
At first, the "semi-solid ice layer" protected the planet from a bombardment of small meteors and radiation. Having been struck by a larger meteor, caused a massive melt down and a massive eruption below via impact. This is considered to be the thing that wiped out the dinosaurs. The Ice Age is in question, due to to the "type" of water it was --was it a "meteor winter", a complete freeze out or a massive pressurization of the planet by liquid water. Also noted is the "mist that watered the earth --like London or Ireland today-- versus rain/monsoons in Asia and the mention of a rainbow, which can only be produced by upper level cold water vapor and warm surface water vapor mixing and forming an acute prism.
Sorry, am "tambling' (type rambling)...
wait i think i found it, it said 10th century BCE, not 10,000 years ago. more 1,000 years before Christ era which makes it roughly 3,000. you're right unless that's not the article I read.
Although I agree in principle with what you post I take issue in part of your mini study. You said that
"Psalms 104 talks about a flood that destroyed the earth and its inhabitant. This could not be Noah’s flood because Noah’s flood took months to recede. In psalms 104:7 God tells the water to recede and it receded immediately. It did not take months."
At this point you either missed or chose to omit Psalms 104:9 which praises God with this line.
"You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth."
If your explanation can not be Noah's flood as you stated, 104:9 can not be true, and Noah's flood never happened because "never again will they cover the earth".
If god is eternal surely his day wouldn't be 24 hrs, i am pretty sure he made the earths day 24 hrs.
Mans perception of time is his own design, a day and night is a day, 365 days is a year and everything man does is measured in his years.
The earth is undoubtedly more than 13000 years old man is just a baby and still believes he is a grown up.
Sorry, you can't see that obvious contradiction?
He made the earths time 24 hrs.
Man measures things in his own time scale. The bible says god made the world in 7 days (6 days and a rest day) but it didn't say what type of days they were. Some automatically assume it was 168 hours. Others believe that if god is eternal then why would he put a measurement against his own time.
Exactly like the time scale God created, or was that just coincidence?
The bible was written by men, hence we understand entirely the time scale used.
Because we totally didn't base our entire sense of time on the Earth's rotation and revolution. That would just be silly.
On that very page we have a scale of what is meant by a day.
Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account.
The Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.
A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.
On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.
The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.
Clearly, the Bible’s language allows for major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”
In fact, at Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894." - http://bit.ly/156Vanl
Intrinsically, then, and contrary to the amphigory of some Fundamentalists, Genesis does not teach that the universe, including the earth and all living things on it, was created abruptly in the relatively recent past. Rather, the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonizes with many recent scientific discoveries.
Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible’s declaration that God created all things. Interestingly, however, in the ancient Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that the universe had a beginning and that life appeared in stages, progressively, over periods of time. How could Moses gain access to such scientifically accurate information some 3,500 years ago? There is one logical explanation. The One with the power and wisdom to create the heavens and the earth could certainly give Moses such exceedingly advanced knowledge. This gives compelling weight to the Bible’s claim that it is “inspired of God.”—2 Timothy 3:16.
I think it is important to recognise that the bible is not a scientific document.
There are many christian theories, but that is all they are. When I studied the issue in theology I was amazed by how many ideas and interpretations people give Genesis. It causes a lot of division in Christian circles also.
All the best on your search.
i believed that science is trying the caught up to the bible. The bible saids the earth is round in, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV) The bible talks about space: "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).
The bible can document scientific fact or theory's.
How odd. Have you even read this book? The bible clearly sez the earth is a circle. A circle is a two dimensional shape. This is why people used to think the earth was flat.
The earth is actually an oblate spheroid. Your god did not even know that huh? How funny you religionists are becoming.
The bible never saids the earth was flat. please document that. A spherical earth is described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.”
No - a circular earth is described. You quoted it your self - “the circle of the earth.” Can you not read the words?
You do know wot a circle is - right? Circles are 2 dimensional. Flat.
Actually the word can also be translated as "Zenith," but beyond that, the Hebrew word does allow for the concept of a spherical earth. Imagine that, Mark Knowles taking the bible too literally!
I don't take anything literally. I am just telling him what the bible says. In English. He is the one arguing it says something it does not. And the fact that it says "circle" is indeed the reason it was thought the earth was flat.
I am well aware the bible can be "interpreted" to mean anything you want it to. Hence the constant arguments and wars.
And no - the Jewish word does not "allow for the concept of a spherical earth."
Why the need to lie about this?
I don't want to fight. what do you think of my original statements?
I love it when uneducated bible critics pretend that english is the only language of the bible.
The translators made a few errors when they translated the bible.
Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”
The translators just wrote circle instead.
If you're gonna make such a ridiculous idea like that the bible saying the earth is flat then you need to grow up.
More people need to learn the hebrew and greek languages cause it makes them look like idiots.
Why do you think so many people think the 6 days weren't literal or that the earth is 6000 yr old?
No it can't be interpretated through english alone. One has to learn greek and hebrew if they want to fully understand it word for word.
No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture.
Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]
A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.”
Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”
“The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it: ‘He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing’ (Job 26:7).” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)]
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]
You reversed an implication and came up with a falsehood. The original claim was that tehom implied a flat object. I showed that the meaning does not include flatness, thus the core of the person's argument was unjustified.
"When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep" (Proverbs 8:22).
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22).
The Hebrew word translated as "circle" is chuwg (or sometimes transliterated as khug). It translates the concept of something round, rounded, or dome shaped and can be applied to a spherical shape. For example, the other place this word is used is "Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; and He walks on the vault of heaven" (Job 22:14) to describe shape of the sky. Notice that "dome" would be an accurate translation in all three usages of the word in the Bible.
Chuwg is not used in the Bible to describe a flat circle or a disk. You cannot take what people wish this word to mean and then state that is how it was used by the writers of the Bible. The Hebrew word for a flat circle, by the way is cabab. "So he had the ark of the LORD taken around the city, circling it once; then they came into the camp and spent the night in the camp" (Joshua 6:11).
Proverbs 8:22 is of particular interest because it says the oceans (the deep) are round or circular. Yet, it cannot be describing the shape of the shoreline since they are anything but round. However, the surface of the oceans (its face) is round or spherical in shape. We know such to be true because the earth is a sphere and the oceans take on a rounded (or if you will, a circular) shape. A disk shaped world would not give the oceans a circular, rounded, or dome shape.
The point is that the Bible does not call the earth a flat circle or a disk. The description of the earth is fully compatible with what we know: that the earth is a spherical shape.
Now ask me how these writers knew the earth was round when no one else did?
If the bible meant for the earth to be flat, it would have used the term cabab. But it doesn't. It uses the term for round(with circle only being a rarely used secondary term). The only reason the translators wrote circle instead of round is due to not having a good understanding of the languages.
This is a perfect example of evolutionist lies and myths. Just like evolution itself.
You know the bible actually talks about evolution. And how wrong it is.
It evens mentions an expanding universe(no big bang needed).
You know how many agnostics I've met against evolution?
It has nothing to do with religion.
Go check out god and science.org and look at the design vs evolution section.
Silly evolutionist fundies.
Or you could watch the documentary "expelled: no intelligence allowed".
Some good arguments, for the most part. Nice insights into the Hebrew meanings.
I checked out your godandscience.org reference and found it a little shaky on logic. For instance, "You can't believe in both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium simultaneously, since they are contradictory." Saying this doesn't make it true. I can see how both forms of evolution are quite possible. They also claim that the fossil record in the ocean is complete. That may be, but not likely. Too many things have happened, like subduction and volcanism. And the silliest part of their argument is the assumption that all fossil sites have been examined. They haven't! Not by a long shot.
I see no problem with God creating evolution as part of the natural order of things.
"Silly evolutionist fundies?" Judge not, my friend. It reflects poorly on you.
And if God really did create the physical universe to run without constant monitoring, then evolution is perfect for creating diversity in species.
After all, the last 13.7 billion years might well be God's "day of rest."
A circle is definately closer to a sphere than say, a rectangle, or a triangle.
yet the order of creation is at odds with itself & science
two accounts in genesis don't match, moon is made out to be a light, which it's not, fruited trees in wrong order....that's off the top of my head without reading it.
They also though rainbows were a promise from god - maybe it doesn't rain much in middle east, so they didn't see rainbows often?
People thought the earth was flat because in revelation God tells the Four beast to go to the four corners of the earth. if you continue to read it saids that the four beast are holding back Gods Judgment on Jerusalem where the anti Christ will me saying he is the Christ.
The beast will be at the Corners of Jerusalem.
@passion i disagree...it is other way round....bible is trying to catch up with science ...but it wont be able to meet challenges of future when science would be far more developed than what it currently is..
Has anybody been watching "the bible's buried secrets" on the BBC the last few weeks? Worth a watch. I metion it because the last one poured a bit of cold water on the fundies' claim of a 6000 year old earth.
From the point of view of the biblical texts of course, rather than scientific and common sense...
You did not read my introduction. the Earth is more the 6000 years old
No, I read your introduction. If you take the ages of the prophets back to Adam then you come up with an age of not more than 8000 years old.
My question to you is - if this is one of the thousands of untrue things about the bible, then why cling onto little bits of it. Why pay it any attention at all, rather than as a curiosity?
People keep knocking the muslims, but at least they're more consistent in their beliefs according to the koran.
ya but it is not 13k years old either...infact recently cnn had news of german director doing a documentary of french cave paintings which are 19k year old...africa , aussies , India have much older cave paintings..earth is much much older than thousands of years...in fact according to science humans itself are 0.2 million year old species...
I shared above that someone, something was here prior to adam.
I think the point is young earth creationists don't believe in the dating methods used for the ancient artifacts you list. Nobody who believes in the validity of carbon dating or any other accepted dating method could possibly believe this planet is anything less than billions of years old.
There is no arguments left intact for a 6k old planet. The Australian aborigines have been here 46,000 years.
and what's so amazing about the australian aborigines is that they were (and some still are) hunter-gatherers that did drawings on caves & had no written language or anything resembling 'modern' 'civilised' society
I was reading the other day about an Aboriginal tribe that uses compass directions in their language instead of left/right or front/behind. This means that they need to know their orientation with respect to the earth whenever stating a direction. It just boggles my mind that at any given time you could ask someone in this tribe (if you knew their language) where south-east is and they could tell you without needing a compass or even having to look up in sky.
It is completely beyond my comprehension why so many people try to defend the Bible by claiming it is the written word of some God and therefore must be believed to be one hundred percent accurate.
No matter how limited an education they may have had surely they cannot fail to recognise that the Bible is nothing more than an old story book with about as much scientific accuracy as Alice in Wonderland.
Even moving the goal posts a fraction; “This earth age is possibly between 6000-13000 years old,” reflects a small leaning towards common sense but doesn’t even come close to the ascent of man not alone the creation date of the planet...
Then we have those who cannot tell the difference between a circle and a sphere, which I suppose does equate to the same educational level of those who wrote the stories in the Bible. However they had an excuse for their ignorance....
I noticed Noah gets a quick mention, what was the story ? Ah yes it rained for forty days and forty nights... Again, in a desert environment this would be devastating and worthy of mention...however in Britain we call this Summer ! I won’t even bother to go into the mathematics and realism of the Ark !
To save confusion, let’s agree this is the 21st century not 5,000 BC so why anyone would try to justify Biblical stories is delusional. Or is it that if they accept the fact that the Bible is nothing more than an old book then they may also have to accept this as proof of the non existence of their God !
Frasier that suck you feel the way you do. But what ever thats the way you feel. I do believe this earth age is between 6000 to 13000 years old but the earth is much older then that. I think i must explain more. But till then I must share with you that God loves you and wants you to love him too,
I mean no insult to you but Please spare me the "God Loves You" rhetoric it is meaningless to someone who has established, at least to their own satisfaction, that there is no such thing as God !
If you want a meaningful debate, fair enough but be warned that my historical research pre dates what your religious beliefs are founded upon by several thousand years. We know why man invented the Gods and how certain groups of humans started to abuse the mystical powers they invented to talk with the Gods on behalf of mankind. Needless to say such power to communicate with the Gods was two way so they spoke Gods words and wishes to the people.
If all this sounds vaguely familiar to you...it is; It's what you now call religion.
What we in ancient history refer to as Shaman and Mystics... you call Prophets. Same old bag of tricks... just a new audience.
Where are these prophets today.... or has the mantle of their power fallen upon the church ministers and priests, all bent upon maintaining the myth as if their livelihoods and existence depended upon it .... Oopps ! How silly of me... It does depend upon it !
If all of a sudden the people to whom these charlatans have been lying to and cheating for centuries were to rise up as one then they would tear these messengers of God’s will to pieces.
A belief in the Gods and Religion defies all Logic, Reason and Common Sense millions of people already know and accept it.
Of course millions more do not, cannot or perhaps will not accept it, so be it, doesn’t make it true !
The history i shared above goes back to the beginning of time, the first earth age. How far does yours go?
God gave power to his believes. he tells his followers that they also will do these great work.
I don't care if you believe me or not but let me tell you about the power of God. My friend had a cancers tumor in her brain the size of a golf ball. She had treatment every week and the next day they would scan and check on the tumor. well One Wednesday service the church prayed for her. well that Saturday she refused cemo treatment. The next Tuesday the Doctor told to just come in for a scan. Well the scan showed that the tumor was gone.
Did you not here of the big revival conference they were having in central Florida. the healing that was taking place. Look it up. But of course you will say that it is not true.
I posted this because some christian have not learned this yet and saying that the earth is only a faction of what it really is.
I am just curious do you believe in evolution?
The planet history of which I speak goes back tens of thousands of years.
Your history, I assume you're talking about your one God version, started in the year 700 BC by decree of King Hezekiah who was the one who prompted the one God Law by outlawing all the other Gods and Godesses. Everything you accept and believe started there....
As I said much earlier the history I study predates anything you know by hundreds of thousands of years and yes I believe in Evolution and the origin of species.
The fossil record:
The major problem with evolution is the major lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. If animals gradually evolved from a common ancestor, then surely there would be evidence of these animals in their transitional form in the fossil record. The fact that we don’t see these transitional forms among fossils proves that species HAVE NOT descended from other species. Even Darwin asked himself this question. Unfortunately students are given the impression that all life has evolved from a common ancestor in the diagram of the evolutionary tree found in their Biology textbooks.
If this theory were true, then surely today we would see some animal being in its transitory phase of becoming a new animal. For e.g. we would see a dog somewhere with a 3 metre tail and one extra long ear getting ready to become a new kind of animal.
The fossil record shows that species don’t arise gradually by steady transformation, but appear full formed. Examination of the best fossil beds hasn’t shown a single transition from one species to another. Therefore the fossil record itself doesn’t support Darwinian evolution.
The missing link: Is a hypothetical creature assumed to have been the connecting link between man and the anthropoid apes. Attempts to find this have had the following results:
Nebraska man: The tooth of Nebraska man was later discovered to be from a wild pig not a human ancestor.
Java man: consisted of a skullcap, a femur and 3 teeth. The discoverer mentioned little about the 2 human skulls that were found nearby.
Piltdown man: was a fraud as the jaw of an orangutan had been combined with the skull of a human and was stained and reshaped to match the color of the human skull. Other bones were also reshaped and stained. Despite the fraud, Piltdown was still used to portray human evolution as a fact to students.
The problem is that people who want to believe in evolution first ASSUME that evolution is fact, and then try to interpret any findings in light of this “fact”. Evolutionists may argue that Christians likewise do the same thing, however the evidence and reasoning that accompanies the Christian faith, far outweighs evolutionary “evidence.”
38 to 100 species go extinct everyday with nothing to take their places. Don't you think they would evolve?
Please! This is puerile rubbish in my view. Have you never heard of the scientific method? No such rigor is placed on the biblical myth.
All science is theory and it has never claimed to be otherwise. However, if you knew how the rigors of scientific method worked you would also know that theories that will not work across ALL scientific disciplines are discarded, resulting in masses of broadly ranged evidence that supports the theory that is being postulated.
Please read something about evolution that was not sourced from a religious site.
I think it's worth noting that "passing the word's" little comment here is probably completely lifted from some creationist/ anti-evolution website, as Earnest alluded. It bears all the hallmarks of having been copy-pasted.
I am quite familiar with this practice among internet creationists as I have encountered it numerous times on my blogs and hubs.
Yet more evidence, as if we needed it, that creationists in general have minimal ability to think for themselves or make coherent arguments or claims from their own rational faculties, and must rely on the "experts" that lead their intellectually puny movement. PATHETIC.
have you ever evaluated a million year old fossil? Have you ever seen 1 billion year old Bacteria? Have you personally seen a the comb jelly (Yes got that from the Internet) If not how did you learn about these things, Books and the INTERNET, Yes the INTERNET.
It is Pathetic that you call me Pathetic for learning from books or the Internet. Where did you get your great knowledge from? where you there?
There's nothing wrong with learning from another source. There is something wrong with needing to quote extensively from another source, and completely rely on it for one's argument. In that scenario, one is not actually making an argument. One is simply nodding in agreement with someone else's argument.
It is disingenuous in the context of an online forum like this to post an extended text under the auspices of one's own identity. If you want to link to another website, you can do that. Either indicate the source, put it in quotes, or something.
If you have a working knowledge of the subject, then why not just speak from your own heart and mind? And put in a few citations if you want.
More to the point, all of the arguments and claims made by those sites either have been soundly put to rest by scientific advance or logic, or they are in the process of being solved. Only dogmatic entities, or those simply ignorant of the science, continue to challenge the core claims of evolution at this point.
“The history i shared above goes back to the beginning of time, the first earth age.”
What the heck is the first “earth age” and about this “beginning of time business”? Time is not biological, it doesn’t begin and end like living entities. Time has no beginning or end, one may say that time is circular or round with no ends.
Noah story exist in every religion ...it is also in folk tale...i guess there might have been immense famine in past which would have threaten human species...yes god had nothing to do with it...but you being historian know how folks work...so famine story remained and later on god angle got added to it and every religion named their version of god to have been part of that story...
what you dont agree?...that noah story does exist in every religion...starting from oldest to new ones like Christianity and others after that?..well that has document evidence....if you dont agree that god was made part of it latter...well i wont debate on that because it is your faith that god was part of it and it is my view that it was added stuffs...so we have right to disagree on that...
God is the base of what i believe. No where in the bible does it say that Jesus was a part of a religion. God did not put us here to be religious. The religious people are the ones that put Jesus to death.
don't blame religion on God. People take what they want from the bible and leave out what they don't want. this is what starts the waked out religions that claim they are doing God's work but in fact the are damaging it.
But what every you want to believe is fine its your life.
Good luck to you.
i wont argue on that since it is matter of faith...i was talking to historian out here ...religion according to me is not that important ..but as i said since it is for you , i dont mind...if i say 'god is human creation'...would you agree?..obviously not , in same way what bible or jesus said doesnot mean anything to me...
Many cultures have flood stories, but not all. As far as religions, I would be surprised if EVERY religion had a flood story. I'd like to hear a quote from some recognized expert in world religions verifying that claim.
Enough with the freaking Bible/Christian/religion threads. It's really getting sickening.
So don't join in...
Personally, I find an unhealthy obsession with body building freaky but am too polite to say so.
I grant you debating God and religion in HubPages is a complete waste of time with both sides so deeply entrenched in their own beliefs for some it appears to be phsikotic
If you don't like it don't join in. We are just talking and sharing. this is probably the safest way to share peoples beliefs. no one can get hurt this way. Maybe just their feelings.
This is a bizarre thread and a silly exchange. The bible says whatever you want it to say. You can read whatever you want into it. When I wanted to believe I found the passages that pointed toward evolution, the ones that pointed towards the earth as a planet, the ones that pointed toward the evolution of civilization, etc etc.
The point is, the level of education and the secular stand of the person reading it will directly influence what they find of interest, and how they react to it. If you want to believe.
If you don't want to believe you'll always let the text stand on it's own, not allowing for interpretation.
Does the bible say the earth is only 6000 years old
I think it is the scribes who understood Word Revealed incorrectly and hence wrote things incorrectly; earth is older.
People thought the earth was flat because in revelation God tells the Four beast to go to the four corners of the earth. if you continue to read it saids that the four beast are holding back Gods Judgment on Jerusalem where the anti Christ will me saying he is the Christ.
The beast will be at the Corners of Jerusalem.
= - = - = - = -
That is absolutely correct. The word translated Earth in many instnces was NOT intended to be in refernce to the planet earth.
Cyrus the great was given ALL the kingdoms of the EARTH.
Not all the kingdoms of the planet earth.
And in other instances the word Earth was talking about that teritory known as the promised land or Israel.
all that existed outside of The Promised land was reffered to as the wilderness.
There is a problem in translation
Does the bible say the earth is only 6000 years old
I don't think Bible says that; it is only a guess of the people reading it.
The book of Genesis does not get into detail the specifics of time. Many Christians and non-believers get side tracked by the unimportant aspects of the bible. the only thing in Genesis that true Christians need to aknowledge is the 1st prophecy. who cares how old the earth really is??? Not important. The coming of God's Kingdom and war of armeggedon.....important.
I myself believe it is fairly young in age, though whether it is 6000 years exactly, i do not know. It really depends on how you read the Genesis 1-3
Romans 1:20 includes this phrase. "Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made." According to this, the Christian God intends for people to observe the natural universe. According to the Christian God, the natural universe speaks the truth. Everywhere, nature screams loudly that it is old. Very old. Radioactive decay, orbits of comets, death of stars and on and on. All of these say the universe is billions of years old. In Romans1, the Christian God says that nature speaks the truth. Are you saying that nature lies to us when it says the universe is old?
wait we call it mother earth and a woman never reveals her age so earth maybe 250000 years old!
It's a damn shame that anybody still takes the scientific claims of the Bible seriously, when it was written in pre-scientific times!
Whatever is in the Bible that one disagrees with, one can simply ignore it or rationalize it away. It is truly the gift that keeps on giving. The Bible has not changed in many hundreds of years, yet millions of people with very different values and attitudes in different ages (attitudes towards women's rights, racism, religious tolerance, democracy, economic policy, cultural mores, etc) all claim to be devout Christians and followers of the Bible nevertheless. Think about it, they can't all be true Christians!
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --Susan B. Anthony
Just let it go, people. Christianity is finished. Just let it go.
I would vehemently argue that Christianity by no means is finished. I've witnessed a change in my own life since I became one, and I've met many more besides. If nothing else the greatest apologetic is the true Christian community.
When you talk about racism, and all the other things, I agree, i have many questions for those who claim to be Christians yet they arent doing "good deeds" if you will. But if you understand the Bible correctly, being a Christian isn't being a "good" person, its realizing the Christ is Lord and he saved us. Once you understand this in its truest form, the good deeds will follow, but the good deeds themselves will not save you.
Therefore, although you will have Christians that are misguided, that does not necessarily make them non-Christian
If the good deeds naturally follow from submitting to Christ, then we would expect all (or almost all) those who submit to Christ to be doing good deeds. It doesn't have to be 100% perfect, of course. But still, we would expect some kind of consistency in general terms. We do not see that consistency.
When we have (for instance) in the 19th century white Christians quoting Bible verse and arguing doctrine in favor of slavery, while other white Christians quote the very same Bible and argue doctrine against slavery, clearly there is no consistency. If the same book, with the same claims to being divine truth, can be used for and against the exact same issue--180 degrees apart--this is a profound contradiction, rendering the book useless.
We have Christians prior to the world wars arguing that war and militarism was God's will--and they had Biblical verses to back it up. Today we have Christian peaceniks arguing against all war--and they have Biblical verses to back it up, too.
Centuries ago, monarchy and absolute rule were essential to Christian belief. It was believed that the king was God's regent on earth, and power passed from God to king. Today, most Christians would reject that utterly, and argue that power passes from the people to the government.
I could cite countless more examples of contradictions within Christian history. The contradictions--becoming especially virulent in recent centuries--point to the overall decline of Christian belief over the last half-millennium.
Beginning with the Renaissance, human attention (in the west) shifted away from the divine and the next life, and towards the world and this life. And it continued to shift more and more over the centuries. Hence the medical advances, scientific insights (e.g. age of the earth), political liberalism, social tolerance, religious freedom, etc. As adherence to and rigid belief in Christianity declined, all of these things rose.
Today, Europe and North America are no longer "Christian" societies in any meaningful way. Explicit secularism and atheism are on the rise, as the doubts and skepticism of millions of people toward established traditions and doctrines (doubts that had been around for a while) come to the fore, and people realize they can forsake religion altogether and their lives will be no less prosperous or meaningful.
Sure, there are some holdouts, some "true" Christians (whatever that means) remaining. But most of the so-called Christian population in the first world is "Christian" only in name--they lead secular lives and lifestyles with secular concerns.
There will probably always be Christians in the world. Heck, there are still Zoroastrians, and that religion lost its significance thousands of years ago! But as a meaningful influence on human affairs, Christianity is on its deathbed.
ok: 19th century slavery- Big cultural clash. Unfortunatly during that time period, slavery was a part of the culture of that time. One problem Christians have had over the years even from the beginning was keeping their religion seperate from their culture. Besides, if what you're saying is true, then you have many Christians arguing against and for slavery. Yes, one will be right and one will be wrong. But we will not automatically know all things that are right and wrong because we are still sinful. Besides, look who triumphed; the Christians who were arguing for an abolition of slavery.
And so you have a few Christians arguing for war and some against.... again, you will always have debate within a society of any kind. Christians arent robots, all agreeing on one thing. I myself believe war can be justified in some cases. But becasue I do not know the circumstances of that time i cant tell you who was right or wrong.
Today, most Christians are much better educated.... that doesn't show a lack of knowing right from wrong, thats merely showing a lack of eduacation that the people of that age had. Back then they had to rely on what they were told about the Bible as true, because they werent educated enough to read it. Obviously if you cant even read the law, then how do you have the guidlines to know right from wrong in the first place?
and yes, im sure you could, but over time Christians have learned from their mistakes have they not? As i said before, Christians are not perfect people and ther will be disputes. I myself do wrong things, yet I do not believe i have lost my salvation (were it possible) not does it in any way mean I'm not a Christian. The Bible itself says we will stumble.
And finally there we agree. There are so few Christians today, that hardly anyone even know what it truly means to be a Christian, so don't point out all these "contradictions" and say "well this is why Christianity is failing" if you just admitted that there are so few true Christians to begin with. Christianity is not failing because there are so few of us, the Bible even says how few there will be. The triumph of Christianity is not in numbers, but in the faith of those few whole believe against all odds.
You are neglecting that this pro-slavery culture was constructed by Christians over many decades and centuries--sailors, traders, priests, popes, ministers, governors, kings and generals. All Christians. Yes, Christians were prominent in the abolition movement, as I said. Using the same book and the same doctrine for opposing ends.
The fact that Christians in general have learned to become more peaceful and tolerant over time is simply a function of their greater secularization and less commitment to their religion over time. In places today (such as Nigeria) where Christians are still vehemently devout, we see the same backward beliefs and violent tendencies we saw in Europe 300 years ago.
Christians may not be robots, but they should at least have some commonalities and consistency. Violence is a pretty big, simple issue. Since the Bible is so complex and deals with so many topics, you'd think it could at least maintain a consistent message on just that ONE issue, right? I don't think that's too much to ask. Whether it's self-defense or war or whatever application of violence.
Lack of education in the past--then what about the religious leaders themselves? They knew the religion inside and out, and yet they still had contradictions on BIG topics, and more importantly their beliefs contradict the beliefs of modern educated Christians. Presumably an educated Christian should believe more or less the same things as another educated Christian, since they are educated in the same message of God. We don't see that.
I'm not talking about whether we should cut taxes by an extra 3 percent or not for the next fiscal year. I'm talking big issues, profound issues that religion and God are supposed to give answers for. We don't see the consistency we would expect from a book and a religion that claims absolute, UNCHANGING truth. Instead, we see changing values in response to changing cultures and changing times.
I am not asking for perfection. I am asking for consistency. The historical record is clear.
Looks like your definition of success is my definition of failure. I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses have a pretty specific number of those who will be saved, don't they? lol
I, of course, am more than happy if Christians want to keep to themselves in a small community while the rest of the world moves forward.
Wait, why is God supposed to tell us whether slavery (for example) is bad? Are we to command God to tell us everything we want to know? But thats beside the point.
Now i'm sure you're refering to the time when the Hebrews left Egypt and took over the Promised land am i right? thats the example your refering to? If so, the reason behind that was simply to preserve His chosen nation, from which Jesus Christ would be born. If thats a problem you have with the Bible Im not sure what to tell you, cause it was with good reason that the Hebrews went to war.
And your so sure that they had contradictions on big topics; please give me one. Because Im not so sure you understand what a "big" topic is in the Bible. You seem to think of it as a moral code that all we Christians must follow, when it's not that at all.
Jehovahs witnesses aren't Christians unfortunatly, and most people dont realize that... And what? so success is more people?I would rather have 1,000 devout Christians than 1.000,000 lukewarm Christians.
And the rest of the world wouldnt be able to move forward lol great example would be as you said; "Christians were prominent in abolition of slavery". Also, look at almost every movement that you would consider "moving forward" and im sure you'll see Christians as a strong part of it.
Besides you want to argue morals? Tell me, how do you think morals came to exist?
"Wait, why is God supposed to tell us whether slavery (for example) is bad?"
God can do whatever he wants. But Christianity holds that God does tell us what is good and what is bad through the Bible.
"Are we to command God to tell us everything we want to know?"
Nope. God already took the initiative to tell us what is good and bad (that's what Christianity believes, among other things.)
No, I'm not referring to the Hebrews in Egypt. Not sure where you got that from. I referred to the European transatlantic slave trade. It was constructed and maintained for several hundred years by Europeans who were Christians. I didn't say anything at all about the slavery in Egypt.
"And your so sure that they had contradictions on big topics; please give me one."
I've already given you several. C'mon, it's all in my previous comments.
"Because Im not so sure you understand what a "big" topic is in the Bible. You seem to think of it as a moral code that all we Christians must follow, when it's not that at all."
It is meant to provide moral guidance, among other things. That is what Christianity believes. If you don't believe that, then you are unusual among Christians. God sent 10 commandments to Moses. Clearly, he's interested in human morality. Jesus talked about turning the other cheek and casting the first stone. Clearly, he's interested in human morality. That's not the ONLY thing he's interested in, I reiterate. It's one thing that I am focusing on.
Jehovah's Witnesses--just theological infighting. Quality over quantity--again, be my guest. I measure success and relevance, in part, as ability to influence human affairs.
Yes, Christians have been prominent in many positive movements. They have also been prominent in many negative ones. Hence the contradictions that I am referring to. And the danger.
"Besides you want to argue morals? Tell me, how do you think morals came to exist?"
Depends what you're referring to. Morals in general arose out of our evolution. For instance, human groups with people who were kind towards each other, protected each other from harm and disease, and worked together tended to do better and have more offspring than those human groups composed of people who stabbed each other in the back, and did not protect each other from harm. Thus the human race developed a moral sense. Similar moral/ ethical tendencies are seen in lower life forms related to us, such as chimps.
Primitive human societies then took these basic moral tendencies and codified them in the form of laws, religious doctrine and cultural customs. That's how Jewish and, later, Christian morality arose. Today many people realize that we don't need religion to have a moral guidance. That's one of the major reasons Christianity, like all religion, is on its deathbed in the rich world.
Does the bible say the earth is only 6000 years old
I don't think Bible says that; it is only a guess of the people reading it.
Bible doesnt say the Earth is 6000 years old, in fact even with unreliable carbon dating its pretty hard to estimate just how old. But,the Bible accounts tell us that man and mankinds history is 6000 years old. There is a difference between the history of man and age of the world. And, the creative days, they werent literal days, but longer periods of time. Man was the last of God's creative work.
Nonsense. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Who told you we cannot estimate the age of the earth?
I keep hearing this from believers who never seem to be able to explain what exactly is unreliable about carbon dating.
Can you explain, please?
He's right - more by luck than judgement I suspect though! Radiocarbon dating would give some pretty unreliable results if you used it to try to date the age of the world!
Yeah, I get that. But, I keep hearing believers state one specious thing or another about science or it measurements and tools without a shred of explanation.
This is simply a dishonest bible believer defending their irrational beliefs.
It is like saying it would be unreliable to measure the surface area of the earth using a foot-long ruler. Therefore we can never be certain of the size, therefore any guess is as good as another. Therefore the earth is square and god dunnit, like wot it sez in the bible.
Don't worry Mark, I was joking when I wrote that; I haven't gone over to the darkside.
Not only is he wrong that radiocarbon dating is wrong, he's also wrong that it could even be used for this application. And all of this without taking the time out to google it! It's not rocket science.
Oh - I know. I am continually stunned at the level of deception these religious people apply to their arguments.
I wonder why they are so deceptive? Surely this just pushes people away from their religion?
Either that - or they are genuinely ignorant of the facts. I am not sure which is worse. Willful ignorance or deliberate deception. There can be no other explanation.
wow you really hate people that call themselves christians. Did you get tarred and feathered by someone calling themself a christian? Why hate? You have faith in evolution we have faith in God. most astrophysicist say christian have just as much proof as evolution. That not what i believe but thats what they say. I share what i believe and you share what you believe. If your kids come to you and tell you they are christians are you going to call them supid or throw hot grease on them?
Christians should not be hated; they should be loved and respected; and that demands that their wrong concepts should be corrected with good reasons so that the Christians accept them heart and soul.
Dear me. I point out a hypocritical liar and you suggest I would murder children by throwing hot grease on them?
And no - I have evidence and proof of evolution. You have faith. Different things altogether.
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
Your beliefs are nonsense. You hide behind an anonymous user name to share them. But you share them - I will tell you what I think of them. What is the problem here?
The Creator-God created man through evolution; that is more correct to say.
No - that is wrong. Sorry. No creator needed.
How did Evolution start evolving in the first place?
Can one create anything from nothing or annihilation?
Evolution is to accomplish the design of creation set by the Creator-God Allah YHWH.
Who said anything about making something from nothing? That is what you believe is it not? It just needs Majik.
Evolution cannot have been guided - other wise it makes no sense.
Your god does not exist and science shows we do not need a creator.
Please apply some rationale and reason instead of repeating this illogical nonsense. Thanks.
Why should it not be guided with a purpose? Why should it be working aimlessly like atheists?
Because that is how it works. Not aimlessly. Natural progression - still ongoing. The purpose of life is to live. That is how evolution works. Sorry.
You think spreading constant conflict is an "aim"? You think this is the aim that allah had? Please at least make some attempt to use logic and reason instead of repeating nonsense you have not thought through. This would cause less conflicts. Thank you.
Unfortunately, this would require you put down your copy of the Quran and actually read other books, specifically on how evolution works.
Of course, I know you won't do that and will continue to post Islamic propaganda.
So, it makes no sense for you to ask those questions as you have you interest in having them answered.
carbon dating isn't used for dating the earth - carbon dating is only used for things only a few thousand years old. As for being inaccurate - that's more lies propagated by creationists
I was in a biology class in grade school when the question was raised "How old is the Earth?" There were a lot of different answers ranging anywhere from 3000 to 5,000,000,000 years old. The last kid to answer was a bit of a smartass and was just trying to be funny, but it was the best answer I ever heard.
"It's at least a week old, after that my memory gets a little fuzzy."
Does the bible say the earth is only 6000 years old
Bible does not say it; it is just imagination of the Christians.
Does the bible say the earth is only 6000 years old
Bible does not say it; it is just imagination of the Christians.
Try answersingenesis for excellent material about the age of the earth. The bottom line is God's authority. He was there, and we were not.
I was just going to say that LOL 4.55 billion is a lot more than 6000!
Indeed it is! We also know the age of the universe. as you would know, it is 13.7 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1%
did u read my introduction. The bible says the the world is older then 6000 years.
@passingtheword, I'm sorry I didn't see this forum topic sooner.
You seem to conclude in your opening passage that the Earth is between 6000-13,000 years old. I don't see how you reach this conclusion.
Let's approach this with a little logic (and even reading the Bible uses some logic!).
God created the universe. Science studies the fruits of that creation. Science does a very good job with its studies -- so much so that we have our modern civilization and technologies. Science is batting close to 1000 (an American baseball term for "perfection").
So many different branches of science show that there are things far older than a few thousand years. Humanity is >= 200,000 years old. Earth = ~4.5 billion. The universe = ~13.7 billion. There are so many pix of galaxies suffering the aftermaths of collision or near-collision, and it takes several dozen million or a few hundred million years to go through that process.
If there is any indication in the Bible regarding a specific age of the universe or humanity, it would either match the findings of science or be compatible with them. By this I mean the Bible might give a different date, but one that science can catch up to, given new discoveries.
Some parts of the Bible were not meant to be taken literally. There are clues to which parts fit under this category. You have to be sensitive to them. Look for repetitions and apparent contradictions.
There are some rather elegant clues in Genesis which lead to a much more interesting timeline: 27,970 BC for Noah's flood and 10,434,130 BC for the beginning of humanity. It all has to do with multiplication factors. "These are the generations" is one clue. The unconscionable support seemingly given to a murderer and liar (Cain) is another. The "mark" placed upon Cain is yet another. The "years of man" in Genesis 6:3 is still another. With these clues one can not only find a timeline compatible with those of science, but also discover that the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" has remained embedded in Genesis for nearly 3000 years and no one knew (except perhaps a few mystics).
The key to any search for answers, whether they be in the realm of science or religion, is humility (not know-it-all arrogance). I've only scratched the surface and found incredible things. Keep searching. Never lose your hunger to learn and your humility even after you have learned something new. There's always more you don't know.
No sir. I said this earth AGE (Which is the 2nd) is between 6000-1300 years old. i don't know how long the first one was? it has to be in the billions. the 1st earth age was destroyed by God by some kind of flood (psalms 104) not Noah's flood but a more destructive flood.
The third earth will happen in the future when it is replenished as you can read in revelation 21.
If you believe that Adam was created in 28,000 bc that is ok. I am just trying to show that the bible is NOT saying that this earth is only a few thousand years old.
So, if I happen to find a whole lot more apparent contradictions than you, does that make those parts of the Bible literal for you, regardless?
Does the bible say the earth is only 6000 years old?
I don't think there is any verse to that effect in the Bible.
Will somebody quote from the Bible for me in this connection? Please.
I think people mistunderstand it.
Hello, .. nice way to keep us going deep into the discovery of How the Earth began. Thanks to God that we have so many Living saints around us to keep us informed about the beginning of His Creation! .. Bless you people,
James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland) calculated the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. (insert laughter here)
Dr. Francis Shaeffer was a brilliant Christian theologian and philosopher who passed away in the early 1980s. Among his many works is a book called "Genesis in Time and Space." He discusses the subject of this forum. The idea of a 6000 year old earth came from adding up the generations in the genealogies of the Bible. This method certainly does yield an age of a few thousand years. But is this the appropriate way to handle the genealogies? Schaeffer says no. When genealogies dealing with the same period of time and the same family lines are compared, there are "discrepancies." Are these errors in which one genealogy says so and so is the father of so and so, but another genealogy says the father is someone different? Most would not admit to such an error, would they. Then why the differences in the genealogies? Shaeffer says that the genealogies are not CHRONOLOGIES. In other words, they are not lists that document every generation, but are high points in history. When the Bible says one man was the father of another, it means ancestor, not father. And if it says someone is the son of another, it means descendant, not son. Generations were skipped for simple convenience. It would have taken too much time and space to record it all. Leaving out generations intentionally is not the same as error. It is a simple editing tool.
So, the question is, how many generations were skipped in the genealogies. Of course there is no way of knowing that. Absolutely no way. Christians should not be making fools of themselves for insisting on a young earth, when the very basis of that argument is faulty. The earth could be ten thousand or ten million years old and there is no way for us to be sure simply by reading the Bible.
One last point. In Romans 1:20, Paul says " For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made." I see one helpful principle here in regard to the forum topic. By God's design, nature tells us the truth about God. When we observe the God-given natural world, everywhere it screams out that it is old. From the decay of radio active material, to the orbits of comets, to the fact that stars are burning out when it takes millions of years for that process to happen, the universe looks old and therefore, according to Romans 1:20 it is old. For Christians, this need not seem to be opening the door to evolution. Simply back up your concept of creation by a long time period and you have the same thing. The earth is very old. It is time to admit that fact, especially when it does not need to have any impact on the rest of Christian theology.
The earth is billions of years old. Besides, that, there was and is continuing evolution of mineral, plant, and animal species. The Bible was written by those who had a limited knowledge of the world. They interpreted society and the world according to their concept. As humankind progressed and with the introduction of science, the world became more enlightened,educated, and knowledgeable.
To its (one of very few) credit(s), the Bible never presupposes that it knows the age of the Earth. It's actually pretty vague on the issue. It's just that some silly monk with too much free time calculated the ages of the people mentioned in one of the eleventy genealogies and came up with the 4000 B.C. figure.
But that would mean the Earth was created thousands of years after the Chattelperronians thrived and died out.
I totally agree with your point about someone with to much time tried to calculate the age of the earth, using the bible as a reference, it was trying to find the name of that person, that lead me to this page. I actually thought it was a pope ? By any chance do you " know " his name ?
Thanks in advance
It was Archbishop James Ussher.
In the Foundation Series, by Isaac Asimov, the ruling class of the galaxy had deteriorated to reading old texts as a method of discovering knowledge and truth. No new research was being done - accepted "research" was always to read the works of one or more people from centuries past that actually did the work, whether digging in the dirt or looking through a telescope, and put it all together to find new knowledge. (The society was dying, partially as a result of that attitude).
Which is what Ussher seems to have done; read older works to find new knowledge. It is also what ALL religious research must do - read the works of people from the far past that is accepted as true because they are old and that claims intimate knowledge of a god. Then "deduce" new knowledge from words that millions of other people have also studied for new knowledge.
Thank goodness for the scientific method, where that old methodology of learning was left behind.
The problem for Christians as I see it with the whole indeterminate day-length topic is, that if there is a god and he/she/it did eventually create the Earth, then that entity would not only have had to start it spinning, without which there would be no days or nights, and by so doing de-facto not only determining the precise day length for this planet, but the exact gradual slowing of that spin to it's current speed along with the tilt of the Earth without which there would be no Seasons either, not to mention the distance we are from the Sun, our nearest star, which sustains all the living things here.
No one should ever confuse superstition and old wives tales with Science.
It doesn't make any sense.
Here's what I think.. I believe it is a completely new look at it.. I don't care how we got here, it doesn't matter how old the earth is, or how much longer it's got left, all that matters is that we're here, right here, right now. We are able to have this conversation from wherever we are in this world. Science gave us that, religion gave us a reason to do what we do, whether it is to further our knowledge of our religion, learn about a new one, prove someone wrong, who knows how many reasons there are; they are innumerable, like the stars. Science, though, does help us understand a whole lot more than a book that a bunch of old guys wrote. Science is continually evolving, while religion, well, it's just a book. Science keeps getting better, while religion, it stays basically the same. That's just my opinion, don't quote me on that.
It's easier to conclude that the Jewish people were established 6,000 years ago from whatever Semitic tribe they originated.
Not quite that old. The Jewish people are part of the Tribes of Israel, who descended from a man named Ever (or Eber), the father of the Hebrew (Evrit in Hebrew) language. In ancient records, some of Ever's offspring were also referred to as the 'Habiru' or 'Apiru.'
The Hebrew people (not all are of the Tribes of Israel) were descendants of the man Ever, who died about 1817 BCE (3,832 years ago). Some of the Hebrew people stayed in Ur when Abraham journeyed to the Plains of Harran, named for Abraham's deceased brother Harran, that his name be preserved. The region is called the "Harran Plains" to this day.
This is from my Hub, 'Bethlehem Israel':
"The city of Harran is mentioned in the Ebla Tablets which are housed at the Aleppo Museum in Syria. The ruins of ancient Harran are near Altınbaşak in present-day Turkey." The map below is also from that Hub:
This is the genealogical chart of the family, from my Hub 'What is Passover?'
Noah and his sons and grand kids are metaphors used to explain the Mesopotamian region but the city/states of Mesopotamia say something entirely different. Ur was originally a Sumerian city/state founded around 3800 BCE. Ur's patron god was Sin. Sumer had already been already incorporated into Assyria by the time the Torah (OT) was written in the 5t and 6th Century BC. Abraham and none of his ancestors exists outside the Bible. Noah and the ark was inspired by the Sumerian poem the Epic of Ziusudra that tells the story of how their chief gods, Anu, Enlil, and Enki called together the council and decided to kill mankind with a flood. Enki chose one man to build a great boat (out of reeds) to save his family and craftspeople of the city/state of Shuruppak along with all the animals of the field from a flood lasting six days and seven nights. This story also appeared later on in the Epic of Gilgamesh which was a very popular Babylonian story at the time when the captive Jews put their story to writing.
Though it's hard not to sound patronising when trying talk to believers of all faiths, and especially when discussing weighty topics like the age of the earth, I have to say that the puerile and one dimensional nature of some of the reasoning I'm reading here is about to fall into an abyss of ignorance. There's a mountain of other books that will tell you the real age of the earth and much more besides for goodness sake, all you have to do is read one of them. Or two? It's up to you but read one at least.
As a source of geological information about the earth the bible is kitchen roll and nothing more.
And if you were in any doubt about the validity of the story of Noah for example, and the preposterous task that was imposed upon him, just watch this.
by John Sarkis 8 years ago
Did God become a hoax after modern science?We now believe The Bible was wrong, because, the earth cannot be 6k years old - this is wrong by the way, the Book of Genesis never states how old earth or the universe are! God could have been lonely for billions of years before he decided to create...
by Jonesy0311 6 years ago
How do you argue with someone who says that the Earth is only 10,000 years old?
by Cindy Vine 4 years ago
If Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth, who did their children marry?
by DancingRedFeather 4 years ago
If only 144,000 will be ruling with Jesus on the Kingdom on earth..how come so many believe that wheIn the Lord's prayer we ask that His kingdom be on Earth as in Heaven. So it means that if there is a Earthly Kingdom..there has to be people living in it..right? So it is logical then that not...
by heavenbound5511 10 years ago
The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of...
by Mark Victor 6 years ago
According to the timetables of the Holy Bible it teaches that the flood was 4990 BC. It is now the year 2014. 2014 + 4990 - 1 (subtract one as there is no year zero) = 7003 BC years from the time God sealed Noah in the ark, to now. Before the flood, the ancient long forgotten wicked world...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|