Young Earth/Old Earth

[other one]

I deleted all of my posts concerning this OM.     But  for your own future safety you should look further into what has happened here.   I spent nearly 40 years of my life working with Xerox dealing with what can and an not be copied and who owned intellectual knowledge.

While it is true that he gave credit to Chuch Missler and Ross, the article he copied completely without giving credit, nor copying the credits that the article listed at the bottom of it's page, which is much too much to be legal.    Second the intellectual ownership of this article came as far as I can see from the place I first saw it belongs to the web site for they are the ones who did the research for the article and though they give Chuck and Ross an acknowledgement, it did not cover the work that they had to do to put it together.

I do not see where I lied about anything, but I did remove it.....    you really should discuss this with George and make sure you really understand the laws concerning these things.   I do expect an apology for being called a liar unless I said something other than I can personally see from all this.   And I am posting this in the public forum because people need to understand what they should not be doing.

[HAZARD]

3 hours ago, Ezra said:

There's another way to interpret "after their kind".  It simply means according to their species.  IOW God made specific species of creatures at the time of creation.  They did not evolve.  A hummingbird was a hummingbird at that time, as it is now.

God made specific species of creatures at the time of creation; (I agree, "In the beginning," Gen. 1:1, ) They did not evolve. ( Again, I agree A hummingbird was a hummingbird at that time, (again, I agree, "In the beginning," Gen. 1;1, )as it is now.

You can interpret it any way you like, all the while, rejecting or ignoring Scriptures which clearly teach, that the world that, "not now is," but the world, "that then was, PERISHED."

2 Peter 3: 5, For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing1 out of the water and in the water:
V. 6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

perished:

per·ish

v. per·ished, per·ish·ing, per·ish·es

1. To die or be destroyed, especially in a violent or untimely manner:

2. To pass from existence;

3. To bring to destruction; destroy:

And also the fact that God said, after the restoration of the earth and all things in it,  "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth,"

It must have been plenished before, for God to say, "Replenish, as He did again with Noah.

Replenish; verb (used with object)

1. To make full or complete again, as by supplying what has been;

to replenish one's stock of food.

 

2. To supply (a fire, stove, etc.) with fresh fuel.

 

3. To fill again or anew.

Examples of replenish in a sentence

1. An efficient staff of workers replenished the trays of appetizers almost as quickly as guests emptied them.

2. He replenished his supply of wood in preparation for the winter.

3. Drink this—you need to replenish your fluids after your hike.

4. plants that replenish soil nutrients

[woundeddog]

I think the best argument for young earth is that the Bible says it is~~~~

[Ezra]

2 hours ago, HAZARD said:

V. 6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

There is only one Flood recorded in Scripture, and that is the Flood which is mentioned here.   There was no Flood before the Flood.

[HAZARD]

26 minutes ago, Ezra said:

There is only one Flood recorded in Scripture, and that is the Flood which is mentioned here.   There was no Flood before the Flood.

Sorry, again, I have taken many hours to compile this and type it out, so I will post it again here on this particular thread to show Biblicly that there were two separate and distinct floods

 If one takes the time to read and check, in one's own bible each Scripture, with the help of the Holy Spirit and an honest and open heart, disregarding what we were taught in school, in church, or the ideas we may have, and compare them with the other, ie., the difference between the two great floods one can see that there were in fact two floods.

If not, if its too much trouble or effort to study and compare each Scripture, and its easier to just say, NO, there was only one flood, then we may as well tear every page out of our bibles which contain these Scriptures, and in fact, better still, toss the entire bible in the bin! because if we cannot even understand and believe these simple, clear and precise Scriptural differences, then we most certainly will not be able to understand anything God says at all.

Here is Scriptural proof that there were two great floods on this Earth. Lucifers flood I will head "L.F and Noahs flood N.F. If you do nothing at all but read these Scriptures your eyes will be opened!

Praise His name for ever more.

Remember, Lucifers flood, Gen. 1:2, which I will head 'L.F. and Noahs flood which I will head, as 'N.F.'

L.F. Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Earth not made waste (Gen. 8:11-12, 22 ; Heb. 11:7 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. Earth made empty (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23).
N.F. Earth not made empty (Gen. 6:18-22 ; 8:16).

L.F. Earth made totally dark (Gen. 1:2-5 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Not made totally dark (Gen. 8:6-22)

L.F. No light from heaven (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Light from heaven (Gen. 8:6-22).

L.F. No day and night (Gen. 1:2-5).
N.F. Day and night (Gen. 8:1-22).

L.F. All vegetation destroyed Gen. 1:2 ; 2:5-6 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Vegetation not destroyed (Gen. 8:11, 21 ; 9:3, 20).

L.F. No continued abating of the waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12).
N.F. Continued abating of the waters from the earth by evaporation (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. Waters taken off the earth in one day (Gen. 1:10).
N.F. Months of waters abating off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. God supernaturally takes waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12).
N.F. Natural work of evaporation of the waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. No rebuke or miraculous work in fled away (Gen. 1:6-12 ; Ps. 104:7).
N.F. No rebuke or miraculous work is taking waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. The waters on earth in Gen. 1:2, hasted away when rebuked (Gen. 1:6-2 ; Ps. 104:9).
N.F. The bounds already eternally set for waters in Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. All fish were totally destroyed in flood of Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. No fish were destroyed or created again after Noah's flood (Gen. 1:20-23 ; 6:18-22).

L.F. No Fowls left on the earth after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Fowls were left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:7-17).

L.F. No animals left after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Some of all animals kept alive (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:17 ; 9:2-4, 10-16).

L.F. No man left on earth in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Eight men and women left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:18 ; 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. No social system left at all in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. A social system left after Noah's flood (Gen. 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. No ark made to save men in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. An ark made to save men and animals alive (Gen. 6:8-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16 ; Heb. 11:7).

L.F. Cause: fall of Lucifer, now Satan (Isa. 14:12-14; Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17 ; Luke 10:18).
N.F. Cause: wickedness of men (Gen. 6:5-13) ; and fallen angels (Gen. 6:1-4; Jude 6-7 ; 2 Pet. 2:4).

L.F. Result: became necessary to make new life on earth (Gen. 1:3-2 : 25 ; Isa. 45:18 ; Eph. 3:11).

N.F. Results: no new creation made, for all men and animals were not destroyed (Gen. 6:18-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16).

What's so hard in understanding this, except wilful disbelief?

[post]

4 hours ago, HAZARD said:

2 Peter 3: 5, For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing1 out of the water and in the water:
V. 6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished

the word "world" here ((the thing that perished in the flood)) is kosmos, which can refer to the totality of a variety of things, including specifically the inhabitants of the earth in a general sense, mankind, or the human race. 
when Jesus says 'the world hated me' He was not referring to the earth itself and all living creatures for example -- and this is the same word. 

it seems to me that inferring a second flood flood from this passage is shaky -- because it depends wholly on Peter using the word kosmos to refer to the earth. he may have meant the entire universe; he may have meant the human race, he may have meant all the inhabitants of the earth, or what we might call today the 'world-system' consisting of the prevailing mindset of humanity and their governance, mores and cultural ((a purely non-physical thing)). 

in chapter 1, Peter refers to the non-physical ethos of humanity with the word

His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness. By these He has given us very great and precious promises, so that through them you may share in the divine nature, escaping the corruption that is in the world because of evil desires.
(2 Peter 1:3-4)

in chapter 2, he refers to the earth and all its inhabitants with the word, specifically talking about 'Noah's flood' and then also uses it in a more non-physical sense

. . if He didn’t spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when He brought a flood on the world of the ungodly . . 
(2 Peter 2:5)

so -- Peter mentions a flood twice in this letter, and the first time he is definitely talking about the one we are all familiar with, because he mentions Noah & company being spared. and Peter uses the word 'kosmos' an each chapter, and in chapters 1 & 2 it seems clear that he uses it both to refer to the earth and all her inhabitants, and also to refer to the non-physical 'world-system'

seeing that he's mentioned a flood just a few paragraphs prior to chapter 3 verses 5-6, and we can be quite sure we know which flood he's talking about there, and seeing that the 'world' he mentions perishing is a word that he's just used a handful of times, referring to (a) the inhabitants of the earth and (b) the system of thought and governance of mankind -- is there a good reason to isolate this passage and see a completely new flood unmentioned, and a new use of the term 'world' to refer to the earth itself being destroyed, rather than her inhabitants and the wicked ethos of the men living on her? because it looks consistent to me to just read this as a reference back to what he said in chapter 2 v. 5 -- Noah's flood, and the perishing of the living creatures on earth, and destruction of the wickedness of the men and the wicked men themselves living at that time.


i know you point to some other passages too, but i just wonder if a 'second flood' ((really a '1st flood' in the way you propose)) is the best way to objectively understand this passage . . . ?

+ ((kind of a different subject but not really)) doesn't geology point to a meteor/comet impact probably wiping out the dinosaurs, not a flood? 

thanks, and no ill-will intended. just thinking. 

 

[johnc5055]

15 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Age of the Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the scientific age of the Earth. For religious beliefs, see dating creation.

See also: History of Earth

 

Earth as seen from Apollo 17

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 10⁹ years ± 1%).^[1][2][3] This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Following the development of radiometric age dating in the early 20th century, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.^[4] The oldest such minerals analyzed to date—small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia—are at least 4.404 billion years old.^[5][6][7] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars, it appears that the Solar System cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions  – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System – are 4.567 billion years old,^[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.

It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact amount of time this accretion process took is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few million up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.

This is a central point to consider in the article (although only mentioned in a short paragraph). Basically the radiometric dating that has been used assume that "c" is constant. "c" is not just the speed of light but the speed of radiation. We simply refer to it as light-speed but light is actually electromagnetic radiation.

If the speed of light is changing then results of radiometric dating are changing at the same rate. If it were found that, as Satterfield suggests, "c" is slowing along a cosecant-square curve then old objects would have "aged" much faster a few thousand years ago, leading them to appear tremendously old when radiometric dating is used.

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Mega,,,,,

    Thanks for sorting out MY confusion,,,,,,,may I say something in both of my Brothers behalf?Both of these beautiful God Loving gentleman explained to each other,politely & decently their positions,both understood one another & both apologized to each other for the mis-understanding,,,,,decently & orderly imo.....

    I think neither of them were in violation of our Terms of Service,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,please re-read what they both said,,,,,,they are both well-meaning,respectful & only looking out for the best interest of this Worthy Ministry,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I hope I'm not over-stepping my boundaries,,,,,,,,,,,,with great Respect for our Mods,Kwik

[kwikphilly]

Blessings SavedOne,,,

   Yes,I agree,,,,,HAZARDS reply was as good as any & he always contribute much to these Forums,mindfully & considerately,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I have a lot of respect for his opinion as I do yours,,,,,,,,as far as the Shroud,I lean a lot towards believing there is more possibilities that it may be the freal deal,I never did before but after the latest discoveries on what they think shows that "the Person" who's body was between the 2 halves had to have been "hovering" & like "light" passed"through the half that was above the Body,,,,,,,,,,,,it is very complicated but the study & research is extraordinary,,,,,,,,if I get time I will see if I could find a link to the documentary I recently saw,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

     I';m not sure where I stand anymore (younger or older earth),,,,,,,I don't know that it can really be said that it is roughly 6000 years old but I don't see any "proof" that it is millions of years old,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I think it is more likely youngER than quite that old,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I think I can only truly know anything by Revelation & I've not Received anything so Enlightening as of yet,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I am an "undecided" & that is very honest                                 With love,Kwik

[SavedOnebyGrace]

8 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings SavedOne,,,

   Yes,I agree,,,,,HAZARDS reply was as good as any & he always contribute much to these Forums,mindfully & considerately,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I have a lot of respect for his opinion as I do yours,,,,,,,,as far as the Shroud,I lean a lot towards believing there is more possibilities that it may be the freal deal,I never did before but after the latest discoveries on what they think shows that "the Person" who's body was between the 2 halves had to have been "hovering" & like "light" passed"through the half that was above the Body,,,,,,,,,,,,it is very complicated but the study & research is extraordinary,,,,,,,,if I get time I will see if I could find a link to the documentary I recently saw,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

     I';m not sure where I stand anymore (younger or older earth),,,,,,,I don't know that it can really be said that it is roughly 6000 years old but I don't see any "proof" that it is millions of years old,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I think it is more likely youngER than quite that old,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I think I can only truly know anything by Revelation & I've not Received anything so Enlightening as of yet,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I am an "undecided" & that is very honest                                 With love,Kwik

After my encounter with the born-again outlaw biker turned gunsmith at Silver Dollar City, I started to read my wife's KJV Dake Bible with Dr. Finis Jennings Dake's Commentary.  The six-day creation account was no longer a stumbling block for me.  My scientific eyes were opened to the truth of God's word, the Gap Theory.  The Holy Spirit guided me as to what to accept from Dake's teaching, and what to reject.  Like all of us, Dake was not a perfect person.  But God used him to reach me, as God had used so many others in my life, and literally saving my life.

From a salvation standpoint, we are all Christians talking about tough subjects.  I do not believe our salvation depends on a perfect understanding of Genesis.  We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus the Messiah.  Our works and Biblical understanding of important issues are a by-product of God's grace to us, so none of us can boast.

As for the Shroud of Turin, I rarely think about it.  But in the time frame of when it was created, I can't think of anyone else it could have been.  But my faith doesn't rest on its genuiness.  I don't need statues that cry, sacred relics, etc., for my faith to be strong and secure.  I have Jesus.