The 6000 Year Earth

[heiscominginthe]

Now I have no dispute with Our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Word. Yet I have a question from you: Can you tell me what Christians outside of the U.S. also understand these scriptures the same way you have been led to?

Please, I would really like to know what Christians outside of the U.S. understand the scriptures like this because from what I have been told by others, this understanding of the creation is an American Christian cultural phenomenon. If this is not so, who else agrees with you in other countries?

The road to heaven is narrow and few will travel it.

The road to hell is wide and most will travel it.

If everyone who claim to be christian goes to heaven, there would be such a multitude only God could count. Yet, the Word of God tells us FEW will travel it.

As for American Christian cultural phenomenon, most in this country as in the world in general who claim to be christian do so with their lips, but their hearts are far from God.

 

[heiscominginthe]

ote:
Originally Posted by StAnastasia
Recession of the water to where? Where did it go?

Into the oceans and seas, of course.

If the rotation of the earth slowed down, stop, how much of the earth’s landmass would be under water?

 

[heiscominginthe]

In certain Evangelical Protestant circles influenced by American Televangelists you find people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and they are the kind of people who run the Christian T.V channels.

And those who look at the Word of God as a fairy tell can explain to him on the day of judgement why they refused to believe.

Adam did not believe God when God told him in the day he ate the forbidden fruit he would die. He ate it and brought death to all mankind.

That is why God had to send his Son. We cannot just pick and choose what we want to believe in the Word of God. THAT IS CREATING A GOD IN OUR OWN IMAGE.

 

[MarysGirls]

Hi, just thought I’d butt in with my own opinion…
I didn’t have time to read all of the posts, but I wanted to say that, while I believe some of the book of Genesis is symbolic, I don’t believe it is as symbolic as a lot of you guys seem to. I don’t believe in a billions-of-years-old earth.
That suggestion about Adam and Eve on another planet sounds pretty wacky to me though. Oh, and there is evidence for the Flood, just so you know…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Now I have no dispute with Our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Word. Yet I have a question from you: Can you tell me what Christians outside of the U.S. also understand these scriptures the same way you have been led to?

Please, I would really like to know what Christians outside of the U.S. understand the scriptures like this because from what I have been told by others, this understanding of the creation is an American Christian cultural phenomenon. If this is not so, who else agrees with you in other countries?

It would be very intersting to know the answer. The US seems to be inhabited by people with some very weird ideas, & it would be nice to find this is not a fair picture. The US is the home of the Fundamentalist movement: even though bits & pieces of Fundamentalism can be found elsewhere, & earlier. British Israelism is one piece of lunacy for which the US cannot be blamed, except insofar as people in the US perpetuate it ​

 

[matahari]

P eople who think its ok to pick and choose which books of the Bible they will believe or reject you should know that the Lord Jesus believed ALL Scripture. In Luke 17:27 They were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noe entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Or as it came to pass in the days of Lot… Also in Matthew24:37 And as it was in the days of Noe, even so will be the coming of the Son of Man." In another passage he told the Pharisees that the only sign they would receive would be the Sign of Jonah in the belly of the whale.

 

[rossum]

People who think its ok to pick and choose which books of the Bible they will believe or reject you should know that the Lord Jesus believed ALL Scripture.

But Jesus did not take all scripture literally. For example, at Mark 10:6 Jesus said: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

Which shows that Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally. On a strict literal interpretation this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at “the beginning”, but more than a hundred hours after the beginning. Secondly with Adam being made before Eve, there was a time when there was male and not female. Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum

 

[matahari]

But Jesus did not take all scripture literally. For example, at Mark 10:6 Jesus said: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

The Ultimate Truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth Your Caption]

Jesus said I AM the way THE TRUTH and the life Since you do not believe in ultimate truth then it is not possible that you believe in Jesus either.

 

[Orogeny]

If the rotation of the earth slowed down, stop, how much of the earth’s landmass would be under water?

Why don’t you tell us? This should be interesting.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

rossum;5089757:

But Jesus did not take all scripture literally. For example, at Mark 10:6 Jesus said: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

The Ultimate Truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth Your Caption]

Jesus said I AM the way THE TRUTH and the life Since you do not believe in ultimate truth then it is not possible that you believe in Jesus either.

Jesus existed, but I do not believe that he was all that His followers claimed He was. If you look at my profile you will see that I am a Buddhist and not Christian. My point about Jesus not using a literal interpretation of Genesis remains.

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[Thing]

If that happened, it happened very, very early in earth’s history, well before there was any free water on the planet.
Peace

Tim

The water would, more than likely, have been in vapour form in the atmosphere due to the high temperature of the earth at that early period. The water vapour would simply have been sucked out into space after the glancing blow from the mars sized planet.
In space the water vapour would freeze into crystals and assume an orbit around the earth.
Sounds plausable to me.

You can say that all you want, but you need to have a reason to do so and you haven’t give one yet other than to support the story of the flood. That is no science and all speculation.

Has ‘science’ considered all the possibilities. Water is mucho heavy stuff. Big pressures.

 

[Thing]

P eople who think its ok to pick and choose which books of the Bible they will believe or reject you should know that the Lord Jesus believed ALL Scripture. In Luke 17:27 They were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noe entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Or as it came to pass in the days of Lot… Also in Matthew24:37 And as it was in the days of Noe, even so will be the coming of the Son of Man." In another passage he told the Pharisees that the only sign they would receive would be the Sign of Jonah in the belly of the whale.

I tend to agree with Matahari, digging your geological heels in just because you think a global flood is silly is selfish, give it a chance.

 

[Orogeny]

The water would, more than likely, have been in vapour form in the atmosphere due to the high temperature of the earth at that early period. The water vapour would simply have been sucked out into space after the glancing blow from the mars sized planet.
In space the water vapour would freeze into crystals and assume an orbit around the earth.
Sounds plausable to me.

What is your basis for this? Anything scientific or only wanting a way to get ice crystals into orbit around the earth?

Has ‘science’ considered all the possibilities. Water is mucho heavy stuff. Big pressures.

Water is mucho heavy compared to what? It has a maximum density of about 1,000 kg/m3. Granite has a density of 2,750 kg/m3. Basalt has a density of about 3,000 kg/m3.

Peace

Tim

 

[Thing]

What is your basis for this? Anything scientific or only wanting a way to get ice crystals into orbit around the earth?
Peace

Tim

Here You’ll prolly want to read most of it, its short. See, I look for science and continuously find possibilities for this water.

Water is mucho heavy compared to what? It has a maximum density of about 1,000 kg/m3. Granite has a density of 2,750 kg/m3. Basalt has a density of about 3,000 kg/m3.

Yes, but you’ve gotta imagine the scenario. Granite is solid, it floats in blocky plates on a more or less liquidy magma …liquid. Just like the silicaceous lumpy stuff that floats about on the surface of a crucible of molten bronze, if you can imagine, that the areas between the blocks of granite and basalt plates, the large areas on the ocean floors, has a much thinner basalt layer, so thin that it is stretched and breached and new magma or lava flows and cools and the ocean floor forms new as the plates separate.
Water is heavy. Granite is heavy. But granite does not flow all over the place like water. Water pressure does not just press downwards on the seabed, it also presses outwards against the continental slopes. Lateral pressure is a scientific reality but I don’t know if it is a reality with plate movements. Then of course water is complicated by tides and the earths spin.
If you could imagine pouring another liquid between the silica lumps onto the surface of the molten bronze in the crucible the silica lumps would naturally float apart under the pressure. But put another lump of silica in instead of a liquid and the other lumps of silica would not move anywhere, at all. If you can follow that.

 

[Orogeny]

Here You’ll prolly want to read most of it, its short. See, I look for science and continuously find possibilities for this water.

Where do you see anything about ice crystals orbiting the earth? You did note, I’m sure, that he pointed out that once the atmosphere cooled enough, the water precipitated out of the atmosphere.

Yes, but you’ve gotta imagine the scenario. Granite is solid, it floats in blocky plates on a more or less liquidy magma …liquid. Just like the silicaceous lumpy stuff that floats about on the surface of a crucible of molten bronze, if you can imagine, that the areas between the blocks of granite and basalt plates, the large areas on the ocean floors, has a much thinner basalt layer, so thin that it is stretched and breached and new magma or lava flows and cools and the ocean floor forms new as the plates separate.

A couple of things. There are no areas between the blocks of granite and basalt plates. You might want to imagine it is like a crucible, but it isn’t. Second, seafloor spreading is one of the things that drive plate motion. It isn’t as simple as lava flowing from a breach caused by the spreading ocean floor.

Water is heavy. Granite is heavy. But granite does not flow all over the place like water. Water pressure does not just press downwards on the seabed, it also presses outwards against the continental slopes.

And?

Lateral pressure is a scientific reality but I don’t know if it is a reality with plate movements. Then of course water is complicated by tides and the earths spin.

So are rocks. It is a common misconception that only water is affected by tides. Everything is affected by the tidal pull of the moon and the sun, including rocks.

If you could imagine pouring another liquid between the silica lumps onto the surface of the molten bronze in the crucible the silica lumps would naturally float apart under the pressure. But put another lump of silica in instead of a liquid and the other lumps of silica would not move anywhere, at all. If you can follow that.

Well, you might like that analogy, but it really doesn’t hold with the earth. There are not relatively huge gaps to pour another liquid into. The driving mechanism is from below, not above.

All of this effort to use science to explain the flood is not worth doing if you don’t have a valid reason that your scenario is plausable. You don’t have a source of water, you don’t have a mechanism to bring the water to the earth’s surface all at once, you don’t have anyplace for the water to go after the flood. You have drifted (no pun intended!) into plate tectonics to try to explain the story and you don’t understand the science. I don’t fault you for trying, but you are not getting anywhere.

So tell me, where are you trying to go with the water moving the plates discussion?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

What is your basis for this? Anything scientific or only wanting a way to get ice crystals into orbit around the earth?Water is mucho heavy compared to what? It has a maximum density of about 1,000 kg/m3. Granite has a density of 2,750 kg/m3. Basalt has a density of about 3,000 kg/m3.

Peace

Tim

I found this to be quite interesting:

  [**PANORAMA**](http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no081/panorama.html)    [**The rain of sowballs**](http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no081/panorama.html)

… ”The images show that we have a large population of objects in the Earth’s vicinity that have not been detected before,” said Frank, who designed the VIS instrument. “We detect these objects at a rate that suggest Earth is being bombarded by five to 30 small comets per minute, or thousands per day.” Comets are known to contain frozen water and are sometimes called “dirty snowballs”.

 

[Thing]

Where do you see anything about ice crystals orbiting the earth? You did note, I’m sure, that he pointed out that once the atmosphere cooled enough, the water precipitated out of the atmosphere.
Peace

Tim

You have a knack for not seeing things, I’ll give you that. The link was not about ice crystals, did you think it would do all the work for you, did I say the link was about ice crystals.
That link was a way of (hopefully ) stimulating your imagination. It describes the early hot earth when the planet was struck possibly a glancing blow by a mars sized planet. It says the water was in the atmosphere as vapour, a small planet collides at an angle into the earth, and your blinkers go on immediately. This is a flood conversation!, so the small planet could not drag materal or gasses back into space with it. Very scientific.
If you do not want debris from the collision floating around in space simply provide scientific evidence over the last 3 billion years or so that there was and is no debris (not Debra, do not go off on another tangent, there is no Debra in this post) whatsoever. Simple.

 

[Orogeny]

You have a knack for not seeing things, I’ll give you that. The link was not about ice crystals, did you think it would do all the work for you, did I say the link was about ice crystals.

That was the premise we were discussing. Silly me for thinking that was what you were trying to support. So, if that is not what you wanted me to see, what is?

That link was a way of (hopefully ) stimulating your imagination. It describes the early hot earth when the planet was struck possibly a glancing blow by a mars sized planet. It says the water was in the atmosphere as vapour, a small planet collides at an angle into the earth, and your blinkers go on immediately. This is a flood conversation!, so the small planet could not drag materal or gasses back into space with it. Very scientific.

Why do you think I don’t accept the idea that there was a) a collision with a large object and/or b) that there was water present at that time? How does that support your flood ideas?

If you do not want debris from the collision floating around in space simply provide scientific evidence over the last 3 billion years or so that there was and is no debris (not Debra, do not go off on another tangent, there is no Debra in this post) whatsoever. Simple.

I never suggested any such thing, Thing. You suggested that the water canopy mentioned in the bible was a layer of ice crystals above the atmosphere but below outer space. Support your idea.

Debra?

Peace

Tim

 

[Thing]

That was the premise we were discussing. Silly me for thinking that was what you were trying to support. So, if that is not what you wanted me to see, what is?

This all started because you could not see how water might have gotten into orbit around earth (or how the water for the flood came to earth). You suggested aliens.
So I provided links and stuff to show that a mars sized planet hit the early earth a glancing blow. Meaning that this could be the way the water for the flood found its way into space orbit.

But you choose not to attempt an answer to that. Instead you just replyed that the link did not mention ice crystals. :yawn: must I continue. I provided a plausable way for water for the flood to have found its way into space orbit around the earth. Job done.

Why do you think I don’t accept the idea that there was a) a collision with a large object and/or b) that there was water present at that time?

There you go again. I did not say you did not support the planet colliding into earth with a glancing blow idea; only that you did not seen to think there would be any space debris from such a planetary collision, in particular water containing debris.

How does that support your flood ideas?

The water above the firmament came from somewhere you wanted to know, I provided one possibility.

I never suggested any such thing, Thing. You suggested that the water canopy mentioned in the bible was a layer of ice crystals above the atmosphere but below outer space. Support your idea.

Because the planetary and geological and scientific ‘evidence’ allows for the possibility of water orbiting the earth; and the Scriptures mention the possibility, at least, of water above the firmament (sky).

Debra?

Never heard of her…

 

[StAnastasia]

That suggestion about Adam and Eve on another planet sounds pretty wacky to me though. Oh, and there is evidence for the Flood, just so you know…

What is that evidence?