• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Can We Determine the Age of the Universe and Earth Biblically?

Says who? Regarding the fallen sinful nature...they are not of Adams progeny.
From the language of the passage we should see the Garden in Eden not just as some green space with nice flowers, but as sacred space. This is how the ancient Israelites would have understood it. Further, from the Hebrew language, it is also likely that Adam should be viewed as a priest, who's role it was to preserve sacred space. When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good an Evil they were making themselves the source of wisdom instead of God. By casting them out of the Garden, all humanity lost access to God and were no longer in relationship with him.
 
From the language of the passage we should see the Garden in Eden not just as some green space with nice flowers, but as sacred space. This is how the ancient Israelites would have understood it. Further, from the Hebrew language, it is also likely that Adam should be viewed as a priest, who's role it was to preserve sacred space. When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good an Evil they were making themselves the source of wisdom instead of God. By casting them out of the Garden, all humanity lost access to God and were no longer in relationship with him.
The other "people" were not of Adams progeny....why would they fall?
 
The other "people" were not of Adams progeny....why would they fall?
What part of all humanity losing relationship with God did you not understand?
 
God can speak things into existence by the Word of God and all that was there in the beginning was water; no earth and no universe.
There was nothing in the beginning. Water is something! Water is an element of the universe, thus, it cannot exist prior to the universe of which it is a part.

Reality was created by God and God is not subject to reality.

Didn’t say he was…

Like Jesus is Lord of the sabbath in creating sabbath for man and not the other way around as if the sabbath is "lord" over Jesus Christ.
No. All that was created that first day by that light was the beginning of time by that first day as there was evening and morning that first day. All that was there was water. Nothing was done with the water yet until God BEGAN to create the earth as a water planet with an upper atmosphere that second day and completed the creation of earth that third day with land teeming with mature plant life bearing seeds and fruits.

Then the universe was created that fourth day.

How can there be water, earth, sky, and an abundance of plant life in abundance be for the universe in which it exists was created?

How do you define the universe?


Doug
 
There was nothing in the beginning. Water is something! Water is an element of the universe, thus, it cannot exist prior to the universe of which it is a part.
The Bible says there was no universe and no earth; just water that first day.
Didn’t say he was…
Okay.
How can there be water, earth, sky, and an abundance of plant life in abundance be for the universe in which it exists was created?

How do you define the universe?

Doug
The Word of God established each day of creation as He was still creating everything in setting it up.

The first day was the creation of that first day hence time and thus the very beginning as we know each day to be as there was evening and morning that first day.

The second day gravity was created when He separated the waters from one place to another in creating a water planet with an upper atmosphere.

Third day He laid the foundations of the earth; hence land teeming with plant life bearing seeds and fruits.

Fourth day He created the universe for the sole purpose that her lights were to shine on that earth for signs, seasons, times, and years that day.

So the earth may not be the center of the universe, but it was the center of creation.
 
I would imagine that water was spoken into existence.
Exactly, the universe is the collective whole of temporal creation, of which water, earth, sky, plant life and all else are specific elements thereof.

Doug
 
I would imagine that water was spoken into existence.
Well, in the beginning, God, created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1.

Created.

And after these were created, this is what we have.

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Gen 1:2.

Can we assume the earth was covered with water?
I also believe according to the context, it wasn't a finished state, and God went to work forming it with His hands.
 
The Bible says there was no universe and no earth; just water that first day.
Verse one is a wholistic summary statement of the whole of the creative work of God. “The heavens and the earth” are poetic imagery of the entirety of our universe.

Doug
 
Exactly, the universe is the collective whole of temporal creation, of which water, earth, sky, plant life and all else are specific elements thereof.

Doug
I wonder if God had to create the expanse of nothingness to put the universe in.
 
I would imagine that water was spoken into existence.
I would believe that would be written if it was.

All that was created that first day was "time" by the creation of light to assign the darkness night and the light as day for designating what that day was by that evening and morning that day and every day since.
 
Verse one is a wholistic summary statement of the whole of the creative work of God. “The heavens and the earth” are poetic imagery of the entirety of our universe.

Doug
I agree. Verse one is like the topic sentence of the paragraph and its conclusion ends in Genesis 2:1-3.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth....

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
 
I agree. Verse one is like the topic sentence of the paragraph and its conclusion ends in Genesis 2:1-3.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth....

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Okay then, if the heavens, the stars and galaxies and other planets, and the Earth, which is a planet within one of those galaxies, is existent on day three, then the galaxy of with we are a part must also exist, and thus the universe as a whole also exists.

If the universe is the name we call the wholistic concept of the entirety of material/temporal creation, then anything created, be it light, water, sky, is within the universe that exists. You cannot have one without the other.

The first thing spoken of specifically being created was light. But that light is not in a void, it it part of a new temporal and physical sphere of reality, that is the universe!

I agree that the creation of light also was the moment of time’s first tick of the clock, for time is the measurement between one state of reality and another. This is the logical inference of Gen 1:3. The universe’s existence is also a logical inference as the initiation of the yet ever expanding scope of creation known as the Universe.

Doug
 
I watched the video which presents arguments that claim to provide evidence for a global flood based on physical features and fossil evidence found on Earth. It claims that evidence is found across continents indicate a catastrophic event like a global flood and criticizes scientists for not recognizing this evidence due to their acceptance of a different historical timeline involving slow sediment deposition over millions of years.

This is a religious claim based on a young earth timeline for which there is no scientific support. The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the understanding that the geological and fossil records are the result of gradual processes occurring over millions of years, rather than a single global flood event.

While some features mentioned in the passage may be explained by other geological processes, the interpretation of these features as evidence for a global flood lacks substantial scientific support. The claims in the video neither approach scientific claims and evidence critically or rely on a understanding of scientific methods and consensus.
 
Okay then, if the heavens, the stars and galaxies and other planets, and the Earth, which is a planet within one of those galaxies, is existent on day three, then the galaxy of with we are a part must also exist, and thus the universe as a whole also exists.
The earth as any form of planet did not exist at all on day one.

The beginning of the creation of the earth began on day 2 by God creating a water planet with an upper atmosphere as dividing the firmament from the other firmament.

Then day 3 was the completion of the creation of planet earth.

The universe did not exist until day four.
If the universe is the name we call the wholistic concept of the entirety of material/temporal creation, then anything created, be it light, water, sky, is within the universe that exists. You cannot have one without the other.
As for the word of God goes, the beginning was established by that first day as there was evening and morning that day by that light created.

Nothing else had to be in existence other than water for God to create the first day as establishing that very beginning.
The first thing spoken of specifically being created was light. But that light is not in a void, it it part of a new temporal and physical sphere of reality, that is the universe!
Reality as in time was established that first day and thus the creation of "In the beginning..." and so no, you do not need the universe created yet when time was created that first day thus establishing the reality but not the universe when it was created the fourth day.
I agree that the creation of light also was the moment of time’s first tick of the clock, for time is the measurement between one state of reality and another. This is the logical inference of Gen 1:3. The universe’s existence is also a logical inference as the initiation of the yet ever expanding scope of creation known as the Universe.

Doug
To be clear and not confusing; reality as time began on the first day does not necessarily mean the universe was there when it was created the fourth day.
 
I watched the video which presents arguments that claim to provide evidence for a global flood based on physical features and fossil evidence found on Earth. It claims that evidence is found across continents indicate a catastrophic event like a global flood and criticizes scientists for not recognizing this evidence due to their acceptance of a different historical timeline involving slow sediment deposition over millions of years.
When they do their radiometric dating based on that faulty assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55,000 years, then they can have no scientific support for the old earth.
This is a religious claim based on a young earth timeline for which there is no scientific support. The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the understanding that the geological and fossil records are the result of gradual processes occurring over millions of years, rather than a single global flood event.
How many fossils and frozen mammoths testify to a sudden calamity?

How many times has science claimed that asteroids has hit the earth in light of the evolution theory? And they still wish to maintain that teh rate of decay is constant even in those many assumed scenarios?

Has science ever considered that all of those asteroids hit the earth & the moon at the time of the Biblical flood that would cause the moon to start moving away from the earth; thus causing the mist to rise into the upper atmosphere to condense into clouds ad rain for the first time while the asteroid impacts on the earth would cause the fountains of the deep that has been watering the earth by that mist will come gushing out?

Are there not many legends of the global flood found in cultures all over the world or not?

Flood Legends From Around the World <---- so kind of hard to limit it as created by a specific religion.
While some features mentioned in the passage may be explained by other geological processes, the interpretation of these features as evidence for a global flood lacks substantial scientific support. The claims in the video neither approach scientific claims and evidence critically or rely on a understanding of scientific methods and consensus.
When fossilized whale bones found on the Andes mountaintops with other marine fossils FOUND BURIED TOGETHER in that one smooth gradient; that same sedimentary layer that buried the land animal fossils in, that fossilized them both together; is evidence of the Biblical global flood.

The fact that you should find evolutionists wanting is by neglecting to explain how the land animal fossils were found buried with these marine fossils in that same sedimentary layer they were buried in that one smooth gradient shows a blindness of men due to the false evolution theory.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA
 
When they do their radiometric dating based on that faulty assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55,000 years, then they can have no scientific support for the old earth.

How many fossils and frozen mammoths testify to a sudden calamity?

How many times has science claimed that asteroids has hit the earth in light of the evolution theory? And they still wish to maintain that teh rate of decay is constant even in those many assumed scenarios?

Has science ever considered that all of those asteroids hit the earth & the moon at the time of the Biblical flood that would cause the moon to start moving away from the earth; thus causing the mist to rise into the upper atmosphere to condense into clouds ad rain for the first time while the asteroid impacts on the earth would cause the fountains of the deep that has been watering the earth by that mist will come gushing out?

Are there not many legends of the global flood found in cultures all over the world or not?

Flood Legends From Around the World <---- so kind of hard to limit it as created by a specific religion.

When fossilized whale bones found on the Andes mountaintops with other marine fossils FOUND BURIED TOGETHER in that one smooth gradient; that same sedimentary layer that buried the land animal fossils in, that fossilized them both together; is evidence of the Biblical global flood.

The fact that you should find evolutionists wanting is by neglecting to explain how the land animal fossils were found buried with these marine fossils in that same sedimentary layer they were buried in that one smooth gradient shows a blindness of men due to the false evolution theory.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA
You are moving the goal posts. I responded to the video. If you want to discuss other things I would be happy to do so one or two at a time.

For example: frozzen mammoths
Creationists say the permafrost in the river deltas and offshore islands of Siberia is loaded with the bones of thousands of mammoths. Even more of a surprise is the fact that many mammoths have been found frozen intact, such as the Berezovka mammoth. These animals had subtropical plants like buttercups in their stomachs, and their flesh is so perfectly preserved that some adventurer's club once held a banquet on the meat of the Berezovka mammoth. Can you explain the evidence without assuming that some huge catastrophe overwhelmed and froze the mammoths instantly while changing the climate from subtropical to arctic overnight?​
William R. Farrand (1961) has investigated claims like these, and laid many of the exaggerations to rest. In particular, he proves that these animals were arctic animals, and he proves that the Berezovka mammoth was really rather putrified. He gives a chart of the plants found in the stomach of the Berezovka mammoth: they are all arctic plants like conifers, tundra grasses, and sedges. The mammoths had a thick insulating underwool beneath their shaggy coat of hair to shield them from the arctic cold. Ice age cave artists painted pictures of mammoths in their caves, a fact that should settle once and for all that the mammoths were arctic creatures. Besides, Farrand shows that the Berezovka mammoth took several days to freeze. Predators had had a chance to mutilate it before this happened. The excavators found the stench of the partially rotted Berezovka mammoth unbearable; even the earth in which it was buried stank. Histological studies of the flesh showed "deep penetrating chemical alterations as the result of very slow decay." True, the dogs of the excavators may have been scavengers enough to eat the fresher parts of the meat, but the legendary banqueters would have deserved any ptomaine poisoning they got. These facts alone do not disprove Flood Geology, but they should answer once and for all the more extravagant claims of some catastrophists.​

I think it's likely that most if not all the creationist's claims for a young earth have been thoroughly investigated and the science can be easily found.
 
You are moving the goal posts. I responded to the video.
When you missed the first goalpost, and cannot see it for what it is, because you keep looking at it with those evolutionary time line spectacles, is the only reason I am moving unto something else.

Fossils on mountaintops and far inland can be found and you see no evidence of the global flood? That means the Biblical global flood is true as Jesus said it was true and that God is coming to judge the earth again but with fire.
If you want to discuss other things I would be happy to do so one or two at a time.

For example: frozzen mammoths
Creationists say the permafrost in the river deltas and offshore islands of Siberia is loaded with the bones of thousands of mammoths. Even more of a surprise is the fact that many mammoths have been found frozen intact, such as the Berezovka mammoth. These animals had subtropical plants like buttercups in their stomachs, and their flesh is so perfectly preserved that some adventurer's club once held a banquet on the meat of the Berezovka mammoth. Can you explain the evidence without assuming that some huge catastrophe overwhelmed and froze the mammoths instantly while changing the climate from subtropical to arctic overnight?
That is the only explanation. Science assume all those asteroid impacts happened at different time periods but if they all happened at the time of the global flood, then the debris, the deluge, the volcanos and the super volcanos, and the rapid changing weather from that greenhouse environment to forming that Ice Shelf in that Ice Age ( which the rings found in their ice drilling cores did not take years, because those were changes in the weather forming that Ice Shelf as it can happen daily if not by certain hours of the day after the flood waters had receded. )

When the waters receded, not everything was carried away as those dead wooly mammoth were found with food in its mouths still.
William R. Farrand (1961) has investigated claims like these, and laid many of the exaggerations to rest. In particular, he proves that these animals were arctic animals, and he proves that the Berezovka mammoth was really rather putrified. He gives a chart of the plants found in the stomach of the Berezovka mammoth: they are all arctic plants like conifers, tundra grasses, and sedges. The mammoths had a thick insulating underwool beneath their shaggy coat of hair to shield them from the arctic cold. Ice age cave artists painted pictures of mammoths in their caves, a fact that should settle once and for all that the mammoths were arctic creatures. Besides, Farrand shows that the Berezovka mammoth took several days to freeze. Predators had had a chance to mutilate it before this happened. The excavators found the stench of the partially rotted Berezovka mammoth unbearable; even the earth in which it was buried stank. Histological studies of the flesh showed "deep penetrating chemical alterations as the result of very slow decay." True, the dogs of the excavators may have been scavengers enough to eat the fresher parts of the meat, but the legendary banqueters would have deserved any ptomaine poisoning they got. These facts alone do not disprove Flood Geology, but they should answer once and for all the more extravagant claims of some catastrophists.​

I think it's likely that most if not all the creationist's claims for a young earth have been thoroughly investigated and the science can be easily found.
Remember your earlier quote in this same post?
These animals had subtropical plants like buttercups in their stomachs, and their flesh is so perfectly preserved that some adventurer's club once held a banquet on the meat of the Berezovka mammoth​
Did William R. Farrand overlooked that or what?

So the environment was not arctic yet until after the global flood.
 
Back
Top