I said 4000-6000 years old because that is the time frame in the bible.
I said I find it interesting that the evidence that was brought forth shows civilizations older than 6,000 years old.Maybe they’re right,but I don’t believe the big bang happened.
Wheather you believe in the bible or not,the bible is history and what took place in the bible (battles fought in rome,etc.) did happen.The bibles time frame is around six thousand years old wheather you believe it or not.
So,if I believe that history says the world is 6,000 years old,then thats my opinion;and my opinion is based on history,and faith; there is nothing wrong with that.However,I’m sure six year old kids will buy your “rocks coming out of thin air” theory.You know how ignorant you look when you try to debunk peoples beliefs and faith system? Atleast explain this in an adult manner instead of bashing people because they don’t agree with you.If someone doesn’t agree with me,I’ll except it and move on.I have much respect for science,as well as history; the bible is history.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Congratulations. At least you NOW admit the earth is at least older than 4,000 years old, in contrast to your previous belief, since you have been presented with evidence of written documents of civilization older than that. You should acquaint yourself with the plethora of evidence and physical remants of human beings and civilizations older than 6,000 years. Or maybe not-the cognitive dissonance might cause your brain to explode.
Cthulhu wrote:
I’d rather believe in something that I’ve always believed in than to say God made the world but his word is wrong;what he says is wrong.
jsbrook wrote:
Believe what you want. I’m not contradicting myself. I do not hold a literal view of the bible. Fine if you do. If that means, you find cling to the mistaken belief that the earth is 6,000 years old, so be it.
Cthulhu wrote:
Biblical years don’t translate into human years?Yes they do.Psalm 90; verse 10 states that people then were not much
different from today. " In themselves, the days of our years are
seventy years.But the whole thing about the life span in the bible is a theory.Even if it were true,that would it would still be less than 4 billion years old.
One good explanation would be:Some maintain that the unusually high longevity of
Biblical patriarchs is the result of an error in translation: lunar
cycles were mistaken for the solar ones, and the actual ages are 12.37
times less. This gives 78 years for Methuselah, which is still an
impressive number, bearing in mind the life expectancy of Biblical
times. Methuselah’s fathering of Lamech would correspondingly have
occurred at solar age 15 (187 divided by 12.37). (This theory however, seems
doubtful to others since patriarchs such as Mahalalel (ibid 5:15) and
Enoch (ibid 5:21) were said to have become fathers after 65 “years.”
If the lunar cycle theory were accepted this would translate to an age
of about 5 years and 2 months.
Even when the prophecy in
Revelation 21;4 is fulfilled, we might again aspire to such ages.
I never said you have to read the bible to believe in Gods word,but if you’re saying God created this big bang,but the earth isn’t 6,000 years old,then you’re contradicting yourself.Thats like believing in Hitler,but not believing that World War 2 happened.And yes,there are plenty of verses that discribe God making the world.
jsbrook wrote:
No, I said my opinion of the bible is irrelevant. And I don’t wish to discuss it. And I’m not going to. I am merely pointing out that the big bang and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Many religious people, even religious leaders, agree. And you are still not understanding that biblical years do not have to translate to human years. Why assume they do? Further, one need not have a literal interpretation of the bibile (ie. the dead sea parted and water turned to wine) to believe in God, despite what you might think.
Cthulhu wrote:
Not at all.
Ok,now you say there is a God.
Ok,well now you’re contradicting yourself if you’re saying there is a God who created the big bang but the bible is wrong about the age of the earth.
jsbrook wrote:
Trying to talk astronomy? No astronomer has come up with a preferable theory. Red shift, and blue shift for that matter, has little to do with the Big Bang theory.
Cthulhu wrote:
The Big Bang theory is wrong(my opinion) because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect.Do you even know what the cause of the red shift was?There are many problems with the Big Bang Theory have not been solved at all.
thirstygirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
Take a chill pill.
Sorry. But it’s hard to take a chill pill in the face of such wilfull blindness. I feel I owe a duty to my teachers to inform, even minimally. For they would be horrified.
I have now decided that this has to be an enormous joke because no one could be this wilfully blind and to have such issues with basic reading comprehension. Not to mention the constant changing of position and then denying that he has said things - WHICH ARE IN THE QUOTED PART OF HIS OWN COMMENT.
Plus no reputable biblical scholars in any of the main churches still hold that the Bible is the literal truth… The ignorance of the enormous pool of reputable biblical scholarship alone is enough to exhaust me.
[/quote]