|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age? | |||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John, your right that most of my translaitons are based on the same sources. But the dead sea scrolls are an independent source for the last 2000 years at least. The rest only goes back another 1500 years so we can indepnednetly go back more than half way and show that the discrepencies are minor. I use NIV, KJV, NKJV, amplified, RSV and Hebrew NT. I would be surprised if the NIV didn't use the dead seas scrolls but I'm not an expert on this.
The two different creaiton 'orders' are not a problem. The first account is a time ordered account, the second one is a logical order filling in various points from the first. Some translations might put 'then' and 'next' into the second account but these are not necessarily in the original source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I've done some reading and found a few items of interest. .... the Qumram manuscripts make clear that there was no uniform or official version of the Hebrew Scriptures.... ....what once had been attributed to the free or poor translation techniques of those who produced the Greek Septuagint in many cases turned out to be accurate renderings of DIFFERENT HEBREW ORIGINALS.... Both come from: http://www.crosscurrents.org/deadsea.htm quote: I seriously doubt the NIV uses the dead sea scrolls. One, because they don't advetise the fact. And two, because it was published in 1978 originally. That material still hasn't been fully translated, if I am not mistaken. Even the earliest source texts show internal evidence of having been greatly modified, edited, spliced... and what-not. Why a Hebrew New Testament? The NT wasn't written in Hebrew so why not, if you are going to read a translation, read English?
quote: It isn't just the order. Gen. 1:27 has god creating people "male and female created he them." ie. at the same time. Yet Gen. 2:20 has Adam without a help meet and eventually Gen. 2:21-25 Adam gets a cuddle-bunny but loses a rib. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John - slip of the tongue - I meant Greek NT.
Ok I'll agree the NIV doesn't incorporate the Dead Sea scrolls. All I know is that the parts of the dead sea scrolls that were viewed early on (in the 1960s?) created quite a stir at the time becasue they strongly supported the exisitng sources. I'm aware that the Qumram manuscripts make it clear that there was no uniform or official version of the Hebrew Scriptures but I'm also pretty sure it doens't bring much ambiguity to the 39 OT books accepted by the Protestant church. We happen to believe that the 66 books (27 + 39) chosen are God's intention for the church. Why does "male and female created he them" have to mean at exactly the same time? You have just demonstrated that you are trying to find something that is not there John! That verse clearly means he created humans in two varieties regardless of the timing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]John - slip of the tongue - I meant Greek NT. aha...
quote: OK The problem is that both versions read chronologically. For ex. Gen 2:18 God decides to make a help meet for Adam. Gen 2:19. God does exactly that. This is chronological order. The whole thing reads just like it. Gen 2:15. God put man in the garden. Gen 2:16 God told Adam about the garden. The logical order and the chronological. Gen 2:5 It hadn't rained. Gen 2:6 God made it rain. Chronological. True the first is explicit about the seven days and the second only mentions one-- in the day that God made the Earth and the Heavens. Oh wait..... took him seven days in version 1 and only one day in version 2. How could that be? Your interpretation just doesn't make sense. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The diversion to clarify Biblical sources is fine, no problem, just wanted to make sure the original topic isn't forgotten, though. Something about old YEC columns, I think?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Giving topic a bump.
Detailed study of the geologic record (the rocks, and the relationships between the rocks), shows that the earth's continental crust is a tremendiously complex, 3 dimensional mosaic of the results of processes that collectively required a vast amount of time. Now, to fit into a 5k to 10k year period of formation requires: God created a young earth with an appearance of old age or God vastly increased the rates of processes, to compress the events into said 5-10 k years. If so, this is something undocumentable by the worldly evidence. (by the way, didn't I start this topic with those sort of statements?) If you think the earth's geology looks to be the results of a 5 to 10 k year process, then all I can say is you are either ignorant or in a monster case of denial. If you wish to invoke a scientificly unsuportable miracle, so be it. But science is in no part of it. Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Moose
We call that 'increased rate of processes' the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Call it anything you want - just don't call it late for dinner (or science).
Mooth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ And what was your PhD disertation about Mooth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Whatsamatta U prefers that their professors have no more than an eighth grade education, but I managed to get hired on, despite the BS degree.
Da Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Hey, WU might even take on creationists then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
This bump arises in relation to a question to Terry at the Talk Origins board.
There, he and I agreed that God created man in his spiritual image, rather than in his physical image. I explored this, because I was considering is God might of created many in the human physical image, in the week of creation. But Adam was the first to be created with the spirital image. Well, that is really an aside to the theme of this topic (or is it?). What I really wish to get into (and maybe it's already appeared earlier in this topic), is extensions of the idea that God did create Adam with apparent age. Also other details in the garden. And seemingly, at least some portion of the physical earth. So, the question now is, what was the geological nature of the earth after the week of creation? How much "apparent age" had God created? That said, I'll probably now go back and see what I started this topic with, and what has already transpired. Suffering from the influence of Terry,Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe My big page of Creation/Evolution Links
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ My contribution to this is old news here Moose.
At the end of creation week we have the created bedrock and oceans with the left over evidence of the land having dynamically come up out of the waters - namely much of the pre-Cambrian continental stata. I don't believe God faked a single stratum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I've just developed an image of what I think the earth's geology might have looked like a the end of the week of creation, had God incorporated minimal apparent age.
The earth's geology would be extremely simple. There would be four components - core, mantle, oceanic crust, and continental crust. The oceanic crust would be homogenous. All the basalt would be the same composition, both vertically and horizontally. There would be no sediments, and no indications of plate tectonic activity. There could be variations in thickness and topography. The continental crust would also be homogenous, with perhaps some exceptions where God saw fit. But no sedimentary layering, no volcanics, no folding or faulting. Like the oceanic crust, there could be variations in thickness and topography. Also, God would have needed to add certain resources. A soil horizon, and perhaps somehow the various products that man would come to mine from the earth. Now, in contrast to the above, my mainstream science image of the earth's geology, in the early preCambrian at the time of the earliest crustal rocks. A core and mantle of unknown nature. No continental crust at all. A thin skin pre-plate tectonic oceanic crust, of some quite uniform ultramafic composition. From this state, the earth evolved, in the next 4+ billion years, to the current level of complexity. Comments from the creation and/or geologist side? Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe My big page of Creation/Evolution Links [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ I mainly agree with you.
In our model there still could have been a process that generated the differentiation of continental crust from oceanic crust during the 'day 3' uplift of land out of water. The Precambiran strata are strongly suggestive of process and hence, due to the minimum time involved, is suggestive of the scriptually hinted '1000 year day' view of Biblical creationism (2 Pet 3, Ps 90). [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-14-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024