YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There was a tectonic/watery like event on creation day #3 - the land appeared out of the sea. Read my posts on the subject Edge (see above). I subscribe to 1000 year days for the creation week (for theological reasons - 2nd Pet) and the science needs more than a day too.

---

JM: Actually, that's a rather tenuous theological position as well. Most biblical scholars interpret that verse to mean that time is of little import to God rather than define the length of time in Genesis! When you begin to compromise the bible (as ALL young earth creationists do), then why not simply accept it for what it is? After all, the bible is not a scientific treatise and you've just given a great example why. Now I can add TB exegesis to JP exegesis to Setterfield exegesis. Interesting that none of you are consistent with the other and yet you all cling to the same young earth viewpoint by claiming your exegesis is correct. How odd.CheersJoe MeertCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, the vast majority of creationists tend to agree on an awful lot though. I can honestly say that the only residual differnces I would have with ICR and AIG is on the issue of the 1000 year days and thermodynamics. The theological one is a truly minor point although I personally think it is (i) strongly hinted in scripture and (ii) is the only way to account for the pre-flood sediments sensibly.

​

On the scriptual issue Heb 4 talks about a rest day like the creation week rest day. Rev 22 talks of a 1000 year millenium. The 'day of the Lord' spoken of throughout scripture (OT and NT) describes events that occur on either side of the millenium of Rev 22. And 2nd Pet 3 talks of 'Do not be ignorant that 1000y = 1 day etc' in the context of a discussion of creation, the flood and the 2nd coming! This even was a taching in a segment of the early church. I am aware of the mainstream Christian interpretation but I disagree with it for this paragraph's reasons.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

---

and one might just as easily argue that a day is a billion years. It is as strong a position as yours and has the advantage of agreeing with science!cheersjoe meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ If you think they're equally compatible interpretations then I'm glad you're not in church leadership!

---

JM: I don't. I think your interpretation is ridiculous and I hope you are not in church leadership either!CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]2 Pet 3:3-9 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 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.
8 But, beloved, [b]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.
I wont be overly dogmatic on it but I wont agree it's a ridiculous interpretation. [/QUOTE]JM: Stick 1 billion years in. It fits just as nicely. Methinks you are WAY overinterpreting this verse. What Peter is clearly saying is that time is irrelevant to God. TB is forcing a literal intepretation on a verse that is not meant to be interpreted literally.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
But only the literal interpretation of 2 Pet 3 unifies Heb 4 with Rev 20.

---

JM: Well, that's the game you are forced to play. Isn't it much simpler to conclude that the bible does not speak of absolute time? You are playing fast and loose with one translation. Tell me, are you convinced that the bible was transcribed and handed down without error? I find that nearly as hard to believe as a camel passing through a needle.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

So your problem for us, the "massive, hot igneous bodies - like the Deccan Flood basalts, and spreading mid-ocean crust, and the batholiths of the Sierra Nevadas, etc"?

---

JM: The cooling rate of igneous bodies is based on non-controversial physics. You've also neglected the non-Quaternary ice ages, i.e. Ordovician, Permo-Carboniferous, Neoproterozoic and Paleoproterozoic. You'll need to fit all those into the flood model as well.CheersJoe Meert