The 6000 Year Earth

[buffalo]

I don’t know that there is any evidence of that. I just know that if we interpret the Bible literally, the Ark held more than Noah and his seven family members. Adam and Methuselah and Enoch and the others were on board as well, and were either simply not mentioned in either flood account, or were stowaways.

It seems Ussher is not reliable.

Good News and Bad News Regarding Scriptural Chronologies

Bad News: Ussher’s Date for Adam at 4004 BC is Wrong
…
There is also a problem with Ussher’s estimation for Solomon’s reign. Ussher has Solomon laying the foundation of the temple in 1012 BC, but we have found that the date is actually 967 BC. Accordingly, the division of the kingdom would have occurred in 931 BC, not Ussher’s 975 BC. In fact they have found that “Shoshenq’s” (aka Shishak) rampage of Rehov is now set at 925 BC (San Francisco Chronicle, 4-14-03). 1 Kings 14:25 and 2 Chr 12:2 say that Shishak came against Jerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam, which would confirm the date of division of the kingdom in 931 BC, right after Solomon’s death.
1 Kings 6:1 says there was 480 years between Solomon’s fourth year (967 BC) and the Exodus, which brings us back to 1447 BC. Adding the 430 years of Exodus 12:40, we get back to 1877 for Jacob’s entrance into Egypt. If we add the age of 60 when Jacob entered Egypt, and the 175 years of Abraham (Gen 25:7), and the 60 years of Isaac when Jacob was born (Gen 25:26), we come to 2172 BC.
Now, if the Flood, according to this author, took place in 2348 BC, that means we have 176 years to fit in the Flood and all the generations between Noah and Abraham, which is quite impossible.

more…

 

[StAnastasia]

It seems Ussher is not reliable.

I don’t care about Ussher. It’s Genesis that says Adam and Enoch and Methuselah lived until well after the Flood.that was supposed to have killed anything that was not aboard the ark.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t care about Ussher. It’s Genesis that says Adam and Enoch and Methuselah lived until well after the Flood.that was supposed to have killed anything that was not aboard the ark.

Then you should read the article I posted. You will then be informed.

 

[StAnastasia]

Then you should read the article I posted. You will then be informed.

I’m on a writing deadline today, but when you post it I’ll read your summary of it resolving the apparent contradiction in Genesis.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

I’m on a writing deadline today, but when you post it I’ll read your summary of it resolving the apparent contradiction in Genesis.

StAnastasia

I am on deadline too, so you can just read it if you want to increase your knowledge. You can remain ignorant or do the reading yourself.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I don’t care about Ussher. It’s Genesis that says Adam and Enoch and Methuselah lived until well after the Flood.that was supposed to have killed anything that was not aboard the ark.

Genesis does not say that Adam, Enoch and Methuselah lived until well after the Flood.

If you do the math Methuselah died the same year the Flood began when Noah was 600 years old and all others had died before that.
Patriarch, Age of father when son born, Year born, Years lived,Date died,
Adam, X, 0, 930, 930,
Seth, 130, 130, 912, 1042,
Enosh, 105, 235, 905, 1140,
Kenan, 95, 330, 910, 1240,
Mahalalel, 75, 405, 895, 1300,
Jared, 65, 470, 962, 1432,
Enoch, 162, 632, 365, 997,
Methuselah, 65, 697, 969, 1666,
Lamech, 187, 884, 777, 1661,
Noah, 182, 1066, 950, 2016,
Flood, 1666,
Shem, Ham, and Japheth, 500, 1566,

 

[StAnastasia]

I am on deadline too, so you can just read it if you want to increase your knowledge. You can remain ignorant or do the reading yourself.

I assume this means you are incapable of summarizing the article and presenting your findings to us.

 

[buffalo]

I assume this means you are incapable of summarizing the article and presenting your findings to us.

:yup:

Summary - you are wrong that there were more than eight on the Ark.

 

[StAnastasia]

:yup: Summary - you are wrong that there were more than eight on the Ark.

Thanks. But the flood came in the 600th year.

 

[Orogeny]

Thanks. But the flood came in the 600th year.

The flood came in the 600th year of Noah’s life. Where do you find that the flood is said to have occurred in the 600th year of creation?

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

The flood came in the 600th year of Noah’s life. Where do you find that the flood is said to have occurred in the 600th year of creation? Peace Tim

My Bible simply says the flood came in the 600th year. It says nothing about Noah’s life. Of course, I could interpret it to mean that, but then I wouldn’t be interpreting the Bible literally, would I? Unless the Hebrew text says the equivalent of “in the 600th year of Noah’s life.”

 

[Bradleyc]

Hmmm… I find it interesting in the comments from some of the replies on this thread.

Points to consider:

1. the reason this member is advocating a 6000 year Earth is because he is bringing up the point of evolution… we cannot simply believe that we are on the same plane as animals (we are talking about evolution here folks)… God created man and man is special compared to the rest of his creation… if we came from worms, I can’t imagine that being very special.
   I do believe in evolution… that is "Micro evolution… NOT MACRO Evolution, we all evolve to a point, but to change from one species to another is what I don’t think there is enough evidence to support.
2. I would trust the Holy Scripture before I would trust an atheistic scientist… God verses Man??? God will always win that one.
   Q: is Pluto still a planet? it seems the wisest and greatest that man has to offer is still a bit confused on that one… oh, and what about eggs?? are they good for you or not? it seems a lot is still up to be disputed on that one.
3. Scripture does have a lot of information on science, but you will have to read it first before you can dispute this. I will say this… if you do not consider HOLY SCRIPTURE in every aspect of your life then you are in for a lot of trouble.
4. I find it very interesting that one would include that name Darwin imposed on a CHRISTIAN SYMBOL (with legs added) does anybody else find that blasphemous? What you are implying is that God is not in the equation and you are putting down the folks that hold God to a high standard. That is an Atheistic symbol.
5. When did evolution ever become a fact? Evolution is a theory, one that its creator even recanted… Keeping that in mind, have you ever explored other possible theories or is you mind already made up… if that is the case then you are not using a scientific approach to this at all… science is about disputing, testing, etc…

6)Carbon dating is a THEORY as well. Imagine this, a test of anything will be confused given different environments.

I am really sorry if this offends… I really think that it is important to search God for the answers, He is infallible, He is perfect, He is the authority… I think that we need to be very careful to listen to a bunch of atheists and take what they say for the truth… Our God is a loving God, if you seek the truth He will give it to you.

If I am wrong, I will say this; when I get to heaven at least I can look at God and feel in my heart that I tried to look to Him for the answers.

May God Bless you!

 

[Bradleyc]

Hmmm… I find it interesting in the comments from some of the replies on this thread.

Points to consider:

1. the reason this member is advocating a 6000 year Earth is because he is bringing up the point of evolution… we cannot simply believe that we are on the same plane as animals (we are talking about evolution here folks)… God created man and man is special compared to the rest of his creation… if we came from worms, I can’t imagine that being very special.
   I do believe in evolution… that is "Micro evolution… NOT MACRO Evolution, we all evolve to a point, but to change from one species to another is what I don’t think there is enough evidence to support.
2. I would trust the Holy Scripture before I would trust an atheistic scientist… God verses Man??? God will always win that one.
   Q: is Pluto still a planet? it seems the wisest and greatest that man has to offer is still a bit confused on that one… oh, and what about eggs?? are they good for you or not? it seems a lot is still up to be disputed on that one.
3. Scripture does have a lot of information on science, but you will have to read it first before you can dispute this. I will say this… if you do not consider HOLY SCRIPTURE in every aspect of your life then you are in for a lot of trouble.
4. I find it very interesting that one would include that name Darwin imposed on a CHRISTIAN SYMBOL (with legs added) does anybody else find that blasphemous? What you are implying is that God is not in the equation and you are putting down the folks that hold God to a high standard. That is an Atheistic symbol.
5. When did evolution ever become a fact? Evolution is a theory, one that its creator even recanted… Keeping that in mind, have you ever explored other possible theories or is you mind already made up… if that is the case then you are not using a scientific approach to this at all… science is about disputing, testing, etc…

6)Carbon dating is a THEORY as well. Imagine this, a test of anything will be confused given different environments.

I am really sorry if this offends… I really think that it is important to search God for the answers, He is infallible, He is perfect, He is the authority… I think that we need to be very careful to listen to a bunch of atheists and take what they say for the truth… Our God is a loving God, if you seek the truth He will give it to you.

If I am wrong, I will say this; when I get to heaven at least I can look at God and feel in my heart that I tried to look to Him for the answers.

May God Bless you!

 

[StAnastasia]

1. When did evolution ever become a fact? Evolution is a theory, one that its creator even recanted… Keeping that in mind, have you ever explored other possible theories or is you mind already made up… if that is the case then you are not using a scientific approach to this at all… science is about disputing, testing, etc…!

Of course evolution is a theory, just like gravity.

And Darwin never recanted his theory as you claim.

 

[Bradleyc]

Please, try not to be bitter on this… it is a Catholic site.
can you give me the date that evolution was considered a fact? I would like to see the information that you have on that.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Humans are animals, but the idea of interchanging bodies in either direction strikes me as incoherent.

If humans are animals then we are also grass, reptiles, stones and star dust. Abiogenesis or a monogenetic origin of life to spurn evolution from a single source makes little sense in either science or theology. rossum said there were never only two humans because the genetic pool would be insufficient so it went from zero humans to 10,000 humans in some undefined time period at some undefined point in the past. You said evolution is the reason for life’s diversity on Earth yet no offer of an explanation to the origin of life other than friends of yours are working on the answer.

You evolution-Creationists (theistic believers) use the same arguments atheists use but the atheist says it proves the lack of God and none of you even try and explain God and Creation of your arguments.

Wisdom Chapter 10
1 She preserved him, that was first formed by God

, the father of the world, when he was created alone,
2 And she brought him out of his sin, and gave him power to govern all things.

Wisdom Chapter 13
1 But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman:
2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.
3 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things.
4 Or if they admired their power, and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them

, is mightier than they:
5 For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.
6 But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him.
7 For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen.
8 But then again they are not to be pardoned.
9 For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?

Jesus said similar to Wisdom 13:9 in Luke 12:49-59. As a theologian you admitted science will never prove the feeding of the 5000 or the Incarnation, but you seem perfectly content that science will explain creation down to the microbe. What many of you evolutionists claim as true or proven by science as it regards life on Earth and evolution is not proven at all. There is no evidence that life can begin from inorganic materials- it has never been observed. There is no evidence that the origin of life was a single act that developed by happenstance ruled by survival of the fittest to produce the Universe much less the diversity of life on this planet.

Evolution may explain why a tree in Africa existed a million years ago but now extinct is related to a living tree in South America, or an extinct animal found in Australia is related to an animal in Japan but it does not explain the first tree, or the first animal or first human.

The Church may say:

This is the gist of the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis. It is in perfect agreement with the Christian conception of the universe; for Scripture does not tell us in what form the present species of plants and of animals were originally created by God.

or

If God produced the universe by a single creative act of His will, then its natural development by laws implanted in it by the Creator is to the greater glory of His Divine power and wisdom.
newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

All it says is we do not know with a number of qualifiers and it does not exclude any possibility of a miracle be it a literal 6-(24 hour) days event, or many miracles at different times in Earths history. In the end, I think science/evolution will never be able to prove the first tree, animal or human much like it can’t prove feeding the 5000 and only a theistic view of Creation will answer the dilemma between science and theology. The fact that many theists are using the atheists arguments seems more strange than my saying I posit a many-miracle Creation in different geologic epochs.

 

[Orogeny]

My Bible simply says the flood came in the 600th year. It says nothing about Noah’s life. Of course, I could interpret it to mean that, but then I wouldn’t be interpreting the Bible literally, would I? Unless the Hebrew text says the equivalent of “in the 600th year of Noah’s life.”

Which version of the Bible do you use? My NAB (and the on-line version from the USCCB) says in the 600th year of Noah’s life.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

1. the reason this member is advocating a 6000 year Earth is because he is bringing up the point of evolution… we cannot simply believe that we are on the same plane as animals (we are talking about evolution here folks)… God created man and man is special compared to the rest of his creation… if we came from worms, I can’t imagine that being very special.

Do worms have immortal souls? That makes us very special.

1. I would trust the Holy Scripture before I would trust an atheistic scientist… God verses Man??? God will always win that one.

How about a Catholic scientist?

Q: is Pluto still a planet? it seems the wisest and greatest that man has to offer is still a bit confused on that one… oh, and what about eggs?? are they good for you or not? it seems a lot is still up to be disputed on that one.

It is only a matter of definition. Pluto still exists, doesn’t it?

1. Scripture does have a lot of information on science, but you will have to read it first before you can dispute this. I will say this… if you do not consider HOLY SCRIPTURE in every aspect of your life then you are in for a lot of trouble.

I read scripture every morning to start my day. I would love to see the scientific information you are reading in the scriptures.

1. I find it very interesting that one would include that name Darwin imposed on a CHRISTIAN SYMBOL (with legs added) does anybody else find that blasphemous?

I kinda find using that symbol as a bumper sticker to be at least as disrespectful. Not that that has anything to do with the subject at hand.

1. When did evolution ever become a fact? Evolution is a theory, one that its creator even recanted… Keeping that in mind, have you ever explored other possible theories or is you mind already made up… if that is the case then you are not using a scientific approach to this at all… science is about disputing, testing, etc…

Evolution IS a fact. The things that are up for discussion is how it happens. And yes, all hypotheses are tested against the current theory. So far, none have done anything but strenghten the theory.

6)Carbon dating is a THEORY as well. Imagine this, a test of anything will be confused given different environments.

You are mistaken. Carbon dating (and all other radiodating methods) is a technique, not a theory.

I am really sorry if this offends… I really think that it is important to search God for the answers, He is infallible, He is perfect, He is the authority… I think that we need to be very careful to listen to a bunch of atheists and take what they say for the truth… Our God is a loving God, if you seek the truth He will give it to you.

You seem to distrust atheists. Fine. How about devout Catholic and other Christian scientists? Do you ignore them?

If I am wrong, I will say this; when I get to heaven at least I can look at God and feel in my heart that I tried to look to Him for the answers.

As will I.

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

Which version of the Bible do you use? My NAB (and the on-line version from the USCCB) says in the 600th year of Noah’s life. Peace Tim

Online RSV; I’ll check other copies. In any case, it’s a moot point.

 

[matahari]

In Genesis Ch. 7: V 5-6 it says Noe did all that God commanded him. He was six hundred years old when the flood came upon the earth. Cheers !