Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Starise]

[Retrobyter]

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

When a zircon crystallizes, lead atoms cannot be incorporated into the crystal structure, but uranium can. Therefore, any lead in a zircon is the result of decay of the uranium contained. Since there are many additional methods which reproduce the estimated ages (within certain error bars, I'll grant), it seems that these "foibles" are just the imagination of whomever told you this.

Shalom, teddyv.

STUDY THE DATA! No one had to "tell" me this; how do we know that no lead could be incorporated into the crystal structure? Who was there to confirm this "truth?" How do we know that there was no thorium present in the original sample? Thorium-232 also decays into Lead-208. Only theoretical math could calculate the "half-life" of uranium-238. So, how do we KNOW that this is indeed its half-life, if the half-life is estimated OLDER THAN THE EARTH OR THE UNIVERSE truly are?

Surely you can see the ASSUMPTIONS that are incorporated THROUGHOUT the radiometric dating methods! If any ONE of the assumptions are incorrect, the whole thing collapses!

The uranium-thorium-lead decay chain is said to be ...

U-238 4.5 x 10^9 a —> alpha
Th-234 24.1 d —> beta
Pa-234 1.17 m —> beta
U-234 2.4 x 10^5 a —> alpha
Th-230 7.7 x 10^4 a—> alpha
Ra-226 1600 a —> alpha
Rn-222 3.82 d —> alpha
Po-218 3.05 m —> alpha
Pb-214 26.8 m —> beta
Bi-214 19.9 m —> beta
Po-214 1.64 x 10^-4 s —> alpha
Pb-210 22.3 a —> beta
Bi-210 5.0 d —> beta
Po-210 138.4 d —> alpha
Pb-205 stable

The thorium-232-lead decay chain is said to be ...

Th-232 1.4 x 10^10 a —> alpha
Ra-228 5.75 a —> beta
Ac-228 6.15 h —> beta
Th-228 1.91 a —> alpha
Ra-224 3.66 d —> alpha
Rn-220 55.6 s —> alpha
Po-216 0.15 s —> alpha
Pb-212 10.6 h —> beta
Bi-212 60.6 m —> beta
Po-212 0.3 x 10^-6 s —> alpha
Pb-208 stable

OR

...
Bi-212 60.6 m —> alpha
Tl-208 3.05 m —> beta
Pb-208 stable

Element Names:
U = uranium
Th = thorium
Ra = radon
Ac = actinium
Pa = protactinium
Rn = radon
Po = polonium
Bi = bismuth
Tl = thallium
Pb = lead

Half-life units:
a = years
d = days
h = hours
m = minutes
s = seconds

With the exception of those elements that have a very short half-life, ALL of these elements should be found within the sample since these are HALF-LIFE rates of decay, not necessarily complete! So, how many of these other elements are found within the sample of zircon? Which are the most abundant of these elements? Can any of those be found in the crystallization process? ALL of this information must be figured into the calculations for this process to be effective!

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Certainly care in sample selection is important, but all these factors can be accounted for. Radiometric dating has been in use for some 60+ years and has been a powerful tool in establishing the geological history of the earth. It's also a critical element in oil exploration and has been reliably used for decades as well.

I partially agree. C-14 can be a help in the determining of an age of organic material, but not without the aid of historical events, and the process is not perfect. Other factors can be involved, like the environment in which a sample is found. A living mollusk can show great ages, in spite of the process, because mollusks have a unique influx and distribution of carbon in their systems.

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Wow, canopy theory. I did not know there were still adherents to that. I think most YEC organizations have abandoned that one.

Well, if they truly have, then they are not thinking straight. Whatever else one might think with regard to recent finds, the Scriptures STILL say there was a DIVIDING of the waters and that implies about HALF of the water was above the expanse of the sky (raqiya` hashaamayim).

There are good reasons why water is called "the universal solvent". It dissolves most substances into an acid (H-) or a base (-OH).

In the process of acidifying a substance, free radicals of "-OH" and "-O" may combine with other substances. The "-OH" radical has a valence of 1, and oxygen has a valance of 2. If enough free radicals of "-O" are found, they can combine into O3 (as well as an abundance of O2) when charged with an outside source, such as the discharge of the upper atmosphere with an influx of gamma and cosmic particles. Thus, water itself in abundance is a GREAT shield against the influx of gamma and cosmic particles.

Oh, and I think if one digs a little, one will find that most YEC still believe in a canopy of one sort or another.

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Outside of the Hebrew word used for dome (which I don't recall), that is the limit of any Scriptural support for that wild hypothesis.

The Hebrew word is "raqiya` " and it does NOT mean "dome." It means an "expanse." Only FLUIDS - liquids and gases - expand! Beaten metal is still in its liquid state and thus can be "expanded" into a flat surface, which solidifies when cooled. Gases expand the best, and that is what the "shaamaayim" - the "skies" - are made of. Therefore, the word "raqiya` " in Genesis 1 refers to the gases in our atmosphere. 

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Everything else you posted is conjecture or speculation. Unless you can present some evidence to support it.

I don't have to. Others have already done it for me, but I CAN point you to a SOURCE! Have you YET read the book Evolution's Achilles' Heels? Try it! You MAY find that it's an interesting read!

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I cannot believe that people continue to perpetuate the lie of circular reasoning in geological dating. You are smarter than that. A cursory understanding of relative and absolute dating explains this. You LAO appear to be invoking a quote mine from a letter sent to a journal in 1976.

Well, it's been a long time that this has been discovered ... AND NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN DONE ABOUT IT! And why NOT?! Because, evolutionists KEEP IT UNDER WRAP! They DON'T WANT people to figure out that they USE the expectations of the data to determine the data's "interpretation!"

In fact, in most colleges and universities, one must BE an evolutionist before one can even seek tenure! If one even accidentally implies that one might be leaning toward YEC, one is IMMEDIATELY censured and DELIBERATELY removed from the process of seeking employment at that college or university!

What would an HONEST college or university have to be afraid of? Shouldn't they be EXCITED and ANTICIPATIVE to uncover ALL the truth?!

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Biological evolution is not the reason geologists say the earth is old. The earth as being very old predates the formalization of evolutionary theory.

Yeah, I've already covered this point.

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Sorry, I find you unserious, misled, and are repeating falsehoods with these posts.

Well, perhaps you MIGHT feel differently if you READ the book "Evolution's Achilles' Heels" with an open mind.

[Retrobyter]

20 hours ago, Solus Christus said:

It’s not called second guessing Peter, it is valid interpretation. Just as there many schools of thought.

Peter is making a case that Jesus has not come back because he delays his return so more may believe and not perish. He then uses the point that a day can be thousand years and thousand years a day to the Lord to indicate that what seems slow to us, say a thousand years of human history is but a day to the Lord, and what may seem sudden to us is but a day to the Lord. 
 

This passage has been crucial to proving God is outside time. And that matters because God who is eternal had to become a man to die once for all time for the sins of man. It’s a crucial piece of theology. 

Shalom, Solus Christus.

The word translated as "delay" or "slackness" in the KJV is the Greek word "braduteeta," the accusative, feminine, singular form of "bradutees," and it is defined as ...

1022 bradutees (bradutés) βραδυτής, τῆτος, ἡ (brad-oo'-tace [sic]). From bradus; tardiness:
-- slackness.

The newer Strong's adds:

Definition: slowness
Usage: tardiness, slowness, delay.

And, "bradus"  is  defined ...

1021 bradus βραδύς, εῖα, ύ (brad'-us). Of uncertain affinity; slow; figuratively, dull:
-- slow.

So, you're half right. However, your statement, "what may seem sudden to us is but a day to the Lord," is not reflected in Peter's writing.

One of the FIRST things that should make the reader curious is "why was the feminine used here?" The answer is because it is in agreement with "τῆς ἐπαγγελίας," translated as "the promise," which is also feminine.

And, the promise is in contrast to the "promise of His (the Messiah's) coming." BUT, one must be thinking as a JEW here! To whom did Peter (Kefa) write? Well, according to 2 Peter 1:1, he was writing to the same group to whom he wrote in 1 Peter, and 1 Peter 1:1 says,

1 Πέτρος, ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας, καὶ Βιθυνίας,

or 

1 Petros, apostolos Ieesou Christou, eklektois parepideemois diasporas Pontou, Galatias, Kappadokias, Asias, kai Bithunias,

So, they were "to the chosen sojourners of-[the] diaspora of-Pontus, Galatia, Kappadokia, Asia, and Bithunia." (I left the "k's" so the name wouldn't be mispronounced with soft "c's".) So, his audience were JEWS!

The Jews aren't worried about the "second coming" of Yeeshuwa`; they're not yet convinced the Messiah came THE FIRST TIME! This is to whom the "scoffers" really refer. Notice how it is worded:

2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV)

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying,

"Where is the promise OF HIS COMING? for since the FATHERS (the Patriarchs) fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

5 For this they WILLINGLY are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH, WHICH ARE NOW, BY THE SAME WORD ARE KEPT IN STORE, RESERVED UNTO FIRE AGAINST THE DAY OF JUDGMENT AND PERDITION OF UNGODLY MEN.

So, the Jews were looking forward to His FIRST Coming, without understanding that He had already been here, and was now coming back with the promise of FIRE and the DAY OF JUDGMENT (SENTENCING) and PERDITION (DESTRUCTION) of ungodly men!

They would only NOT be included in that number of "ungodly men" IF they were also those who had "come to repentance."

2 Peter 3:8-9 (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

And we are STILL in the 2,000 years since the Messiah was crucified at His First Coming, and the Jews are STILL not coming to repentance!

[Solus Christus]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Solus Christus.

The word translated as "delay" or "slackness" in the KJV is the Greek word "braduteeta," the accusative, feminine, singular form of "bradutees," and it is defined as ...

1022 bradutees (bradutés) βραδυτής, τῆτος, ἡ (brad-oo'-tace [sic]). From bradus; tardiness:
-- slackness.

The newer Strong's adds:

Definition: slowness
Usage: tardiness, slowness, delay.

And, "bradus"  is  defined ...

1021 bradus βραδύς, εῖα, ύ (brad'-us). Of uncertain affinity; slow; figuratively, dull:
-- slow.

So, you're half right. However, your statement, "what may seem sudden to us is but a day to the Lord," is not reflected in Peter's writing.

One of the FIRST things that should make the reader curious is "why was the feminine used here?" The answer is because it is in agreement with "τῆς ἐπαγγελίας," translated as "the promise," which is also feminine.

And, the promise is in contrast to the "promise of His (the Messiah's) coming." BUT, one must be thinking as a JEW here! To whom did Peter (Kefa) write? Well, according to 2 Peter 1:1, he was writing to the same group to whom he wrote in 1 Peter, and 1 Peter 1:1 says,

1 Πέτρος, ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας, καὶ Βιθυνίας,

or 

1 Petros, apostolos Ieesou Christou, eklektois parepideemois diasporas Pontou, Galatias, Kappadokias, Asias, kai Bithunias,

So, they were "to the chosen sojourners of-[the] diaspora of-Pontus, Galatia, Kappadokia, Asia, and Bithunia." (I left the "k's" so the name wouldn't be mispronounced with soft "c's".) So, his audience were JEWS!

The Jews aren't worried about the "second coming" of Yeeshuwa`; they're not yet convinced the Messiah came THE FIRST TIME! This is to whom the "scoffers" really refer. Notice how it is worded:

2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV)

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying,

"Where is the promise OF HIS COMING? for since the FATHERS (the Patriarchs) fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

5 For this they WILLINGLY are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH, WHICH ARE NOW, BY THE SAME WORD ARE KEPT IN STORE, RESERVED UNTO FIRE AGAINST THE DAY OF JUDGMENT AND PERDITION OF UNGODLY MEN.

So, the Jews were looking forward to His FIRST Coming, without understanding that He had already been here, and was now coming back with the promise of FIRE and the DAY OF JUDGMENT (SENTENCING) and PERDITION (DESTRUCTION) of ungodly men!

They would only NOT be included in that number of "ungodly men" IF they were also those who had "come to repentance."

2 Peter 3:8-9 (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

And we are STILL in the 2,000 years since the Messiah was crucified at His First Coming, and the Jews are STILL not coming to repentance!

When I have more time I shall study this in more depth.

For me its crucial that “a day is a thousand and thousand a day to the Lord,” to support that God is eternal and lives outside time, and that by coming into time as Jesus Christ our Lord, He was able to pay for our sins for all time (Hebrews 9). That is the crux for me, that it supports Jesus was able to cover all years because a day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day, substantiating that God became a Man and as The God Man only could He the eternal God pay for sins for eternity and yet be in time as a Man and become the sacrificial lamb. 

[JimmyB]

4 hours ago, Starise said:

What is the point of posting John Stewart eating?  Are you really that bored?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Solus Christus said:

When I have more time I shall study this in more depth.

For me its crucial that “a day is a thousand and thousand a day to the Lord,” to support that God is eternal and lives outside time, and that by coming into time as Jesus Christ our Lord, He was able to pay for our sins for all time (Hebrews 9). That is the crux for me, that it supports Jesus was able to cover all years because a day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day, substantiating that God became a Man and as The God Man only could He the eternal God pay for sins for eternity and yet be in time as a Man and become the sacrificial lamb. 

The scripture is NOT to be understood or taken as literal because it will lead you to all kinds of misunderstanding.

[Solus Christus]

52 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The scripture is NOT to be understood or taken as literal because it will lead you to all kinds of misunderstanding.

I am Biblical Literalist, so… unless its explicitly symbolism, I take it as literal.

I believe most of the Bible is literal and is what is says (doesn’t need a scholar to grasp it), unless its symbolic like The Red Dragon who is Satan (Revelation 12, though even in that symbolism its explained in the passage). 

 

[Retrobyter]

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

"as written', eh?  Right.  You are adamant about the 'traditional translation of Gen 1:2 IN SPITE of HOW 2 words are translated elsewhere in Scripture.  So please don't give me this "as written" dance.

No, sir. It is not even about the "traditional translation"; it's about the HEBREW TEXT ITSELF BEFORE any English ( or Greek or Latin or German or whatever) translation is applied!

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You still haven't shown ANY example of ANY kind of object that has NO form.  So boom.

As the Darling children would say in "Peter Pan" to Captain Hook when he cheated at sword play, "BAD FORM!" So, boom, back atcha! 

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

We know from Jer 4:23 and other verses how 'tohu' is translated:  wasteland, etc.  

I'm showing HOW hay-et-ah is translated elsewhere, which is more times as 'became' than the simple "was".

Neither of which make a HILL of difference when one is looking SOLELY at the Hebrew!

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And your claim that there is no contradiction between the TT of Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18 is an lol.  Of course there is.

Maybe there's a contradiction in the ENGLISH translations of Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18 (or maybe not), but there is NO CONTRADICTION in the Hebrew BEFORE any translation is applied! It's just not there because people who speak Hebrew understand how the words are being used by the two different authors, Mosheh and Yesha`yahuw.

Here are the two verses SOLELY in the Hebrew:

Genesis 1:2

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃

Isaiah 45:18 

כִּ֣י כֹ֣ה אָֽמַר־יְ֠הוָה בֹּורֵ֨א הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם ה֣וּא הָאֱלֹהִ֗ים יֹצֵ֨ר הָאָ֤רֶץ וְעֹשָׂהּ֙ ה֣וּא כֹֽונְנָ֔הּ לֹא־תֹ֥הוּ בְרָאָ֖הּ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת יְצָרָ֑הּ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה וְאֵ֥ין עֹֽוד׃

Show me how they contradict each other.

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But, there is no contradition when we understand that v.2 REALLY says "but the earth became a wasteland".

There was no contradicion between the two BEFORE you began to mess with the translation!

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Gen 1:2ff being a description of a restoration does NO HARM to any doctrine or other verse in the Bible.  Or please show me which doctrine/verse.

Oh, please. By calling it a "restoration" when there was NOTHING before verse 2 is what does harm TO THE TEXT! Forget the "doctrine!"

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Your claim that I'd even "argue with Moses" only shows your desperation in trying to defend what you can't defend.

Not really. Mosheh ("Moses") was the author of the Torah who wrote it as inspired by YHWH 'Elohiym Himself! I was just saying that, even if you met the very author and he told you otherwise, you'd STILL argue with him! Would you not?

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I'm showing what Moses really said, and it wasn't the TT.

Mosheh didn't speak English! English wasn't even a language in Mosheh's time.

22 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

From all you've posted, it seems all the argument is on your side.

So it would, if one is willing to look SOLELY at the Hebrew.

[FreeGrace]

1 minute ago, Retrobyter said:

No, sir. It is not even about the "traditional translation"; it's about the HEBREW TEXT ITSELF BEFORE any English ( or Greek or Latin or German or whatever) translation is applied!

We certainly disagree on that!!

1 minute ago, Retrobyter said:

As the Darling children would say in "Peter Pan" to Captain Hook when he cheated at sword play, "BAD FORM!" So, boom, back atcha! 

Neither of which make a HILL of difference when one is looking SOLELY at the Hebrew!

Amazing!  we have "tohu wabohu" in Jer 4:23 to describe what a "besieging army" that DESTROYS NATIONS did to the land and you just dig in deeper.  You're getting nowhere with your refusal to realize what the 2 words mean.  They mean the SAME thing in both verses.

And tohu CANNOT mean "formless" since every visible object HAS form.  

1 minute ago, Retrobyter said:

Maybe there's a contradiction in the ENGLISH translations of Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18 (or maybe not), but there is NO CONTRADICTION in the Hebrew BEFORE any translation is applied!

So, basically, you're saying that Gen 1:2 says "God created the earth tohu" and Isa 45:18 doesn't say "God didn't create the earth tohu".

Are you serious?

[DeighAnn]

On 7/25/2023 at 11:47 AM, Retrobyter said:

I'll keep this short: Genesis 1:1 is NOT a separate creation! It is a SUMMATION of what is to follow in the rest of chapters 1 and 2!

Why HAVE YOU yet again taken to giving your PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS?

BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING is from the VERY first VERSE, GOD isn't saying what HE REALLY MEANS at all, the words HE USED aren't the words HE SHOULD HAVE USED, because what is written, isn't what GOD MEANT....

I'LL KEEP IT SHORT... 

IS THE VERB 'PERFECT' OR NOT?  

If it is, then WHAT YOU SAY you shouldn't be saying because to say what you are saying amounts to taking the VERY FIRST PRECEPT and twisting it to fit YOUR NARRATIVE.  

Fact  - Verse 1, whether you like it or not STATES GOD COMPLETED the FIRST HEAVEN AND EARTH.  

That is what THE VERB tells us.  

So, do we believe GOD or you?   I choose GOD.

Choosing to BELIEVE exactly WHAT GOD WROTE as exactly as what GOD MEANT is my CHOICE.  



I find nothing else that conflicts with what GOD WROTE.  Not even what I can see with my very own eyes.  I don't have to TRY to convince myself that TOHU was a part of the 'creation' when THAT isn't written while the OPPOSITE IS.   


 

Edited July 27, 2023 by DeighAnn