YEC Age of Earth question (false appearance of age?)

{Original deleted for obnoxiousness}ABE - I don't think the exact length of a day at present here or in the knowable past is the main point. Are you defending YEC or teaching me rhetoric? I have not heard you state flat out you believe the Earth is 6000 years old.This message has been edited by anglagard, 05-02-2006 11:18 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 05-02-2006 11:27 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 05-02-2006 11:31 PM

Iano, Scientists actually have a pretty good idea of how the length of an earth day has changed over the last 4-5 billion years.I can't find the links on this right now, but I'll post them if I do.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"To a Panthiest, the spirit of God is the works of God, as that is the way in which God is known rather than through the words of men. Therefore foolishness is not seeing how God speaks to us through the works of God. Couldn't agree more, except I think the Bible requires more than a cursory reading to be fully understood. Of course every individual interpretation of the Bible is inherently infallable. Please explain why they are all different. Looks like we are each able to treat each other as equals, finally. I hope you are not the final judge of my views, as they are evidently not yours at present.Nice to talk to you again Iano, you force me to think about my beliefs.This message has been edited by anglagard, 05-03-2006 01:23 AM

The way I see it?Moses wrote Genesis. Moses wasn't around to witness events. Ergo God inspired Moses to write what he wrote - as he did to all other writers in the Bible. God inspired Moses to use the word day just as he inspired him to use the words first, second, Adam, apple, Eve. Unless there is some intra-biblical argument to suggest that the word day means other than day then day it is to me.("with the Lord a day is like a thousand years..." does not suffice) Just as first, second, Adam, apple and Eve mean what is suggested by those words: 1, 2 a man, a piece of fruit, a womanUnlike my knowing God exists (which I know in my knower) I simply believe these words to mean what they mean - if for no other reason than that the bible is rendered somewhat sensless if events such as the creation, the flood, the exodus are not in fact historical events as they are described. Consider it a case of applying Occams Razor if you like: unity in the bible is achieved without having to resort to the elaborate theories which would attempt to suggest alternatives for such biblical account. It seems that all you end up with is a de-unified mush - not the work of an ordered, logical creator. Man will have to hop over some higher obstacles before I would be willing to grant them that.As for 6000 years old? I haven't studied how the date was arrived at and I understand that it can differ depending on how one tots it up. Suffice to say the potential for the error stretching to 4.5 billion years lies outside the margin I consider possible. Its not that much of an issue to me to be honest.

Like I said, it depends on which viewpoint your coming from. According to the bible (the word of God through man) the spirit of God is a person who does work and a panthiest is a natural man who cannot understand that fact. But I accept that you hold to what you hold to (if you are a pantheist) I don't think anyone can say they fully understand the bible. But I agree with the basic sentiment I think it is possible for a person to have an infallible interpretation of aspects of the bible - insofar as God reveals these things to a person. That one might not be able to prove this doesn't mean it cannot happen. Patently God can do such a thing. All the rest is inherently fallible. I said this as I haven't seen your view of the bible and its message very much so far. Telling someone that they are in error is not necessarily judgement. If you know they are then you have little choice but to. You too AG. Whilst I would have liked you to have applied the word "encourage" instead of "force" (which I would put down to my own abrasiveness as much as anything else) the evangelist in me rejoices all the same

As you and virtually everyone else here knows already: As I said before, without form and void means no set day and night as the definition of a day and night means one complete rotation of the earth on its axis relative to the sun. Formless voids do not rotate in the same manner as solids, therefore the Bible itself does not support a 6000 year old Earth. Additionally, the last sentence in Genesis 1:1-5 shows no logical connection to the preceeding sentences in terms of defining when such an evening and morning literally began.I find it interesting that a literal interpretation of the KJV Bible can have two different outcomes, depending on interpretation, within the first five verses. How is a completely unbiased (as if one could exist) interpreter to know which to believe?Of course, uncertanty cannot be admitted by someone who claims they are divinely inspired in interpreting the age of the Earth as 6000 years, but then again, claims of superiority in Biblical interpretation based upon divine intervention are outside the realm of rational debate.IMHO the demand that the Earth is 6000 years old is not supported by a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is largely motivated by a hatred of science.ABE - spelling, and later for clarityThis message has been edited by anglagard, 05-05-2006 12:56 AMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 05-05-2006 01:16 AMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 05-05-2006 01:22 AM

There is no evidence supporting a written Torah that old. And certainly no evidence that there was a Moses other than the legends and myths recounted in the Bible itself.Who wrote the Bible?
Author : Friedman, Richard Elliott.
Publisher, Date : [San Francisco] : HarperSanFrancisco, [1997], c1987.
ISBN : 0060630353 - Description : 299 p. : ill., maps ; 21 cm.
Call Number : 222.1066 FRIEDMAN 1997Friedman presents a case that Ezra redacted a number of traditions of both Judah and Isreal to create the Torah. lfen

Learning Bibical Hebrew is a daunting task but I would suggest you could at least take a look at Berlinerblau's book The Secular Bible to see some of the problems inherent in the text. His criticism is at an extreme and few would go so far as he does but he does point to serious problems in the text. In the excerpt below Berlinerblau is not referring to the translations of the Bible that smooth over garbled or indistinct passages. Berlinerblau is talking about the oldest Hebrew versions of the Bible extant. lfen

In an article entitled "How true is the Bible, Time magazing concluded.. On the other hand... Quite...I have no need to learn biblical Hebrew Lfen. If I did I would be sitting here arguing the same points with others who have learned biblical Hebrew. I'll side for time and interests sake with Robert Dick Wilson. Besides, the basis for my taking the Bible as it stands does not rely on the point perfect translation of the Bible from its original languages, it relies on knowing, yes knowing, it is the Word of God. The spiritual messages contained within display such unity of direction and such elegancy of construction that it is simply impossible to suppose that 40-something authors over 1500 years or whatever it took to assemble it, could have stitched it all together.Logically it is possible I suppose. But I would bet more on 1000 typing monkeys assembling the collected works of Shakespeare than I would on the arguments-from-intellect I have heard thus far. The message of the Bible is not discerned in the first instance intellectually. It is spiritually discerned. Without that, one is driving blind.