God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[jonathan180iq]

I don't recall saying the Canyon is Flood-resultant, and personally find it to be not so. I am saying that it is invalid to say, "If the Canyon is Flood made, how come it is unique?" without first logically considering, "If it is made by common geological processes, why is it unique?"

I agree the answer has to do with lake and river formation and pre-Canyon states.

Since you know why it's unique from a naturalistic explanation, then why even ask the question. If you can figure it out, chances are other naturalists have as well.

The 100th factor does sustain a younger solar system (that could still be millions, not 6,000 years old).

Except there are plenty of evidences that it's not in the millions, and actually is billions of years old...

MACS0647-JD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - This galaxy is at the very least 13 billion light years away. It's formation timeline coincides with new data about the earliest star formation in the Universe. You know how light years work. That means light traveling from 647-JD has taken that long to get here. Now, you could make the argument that the Earth and the Solar System developed prior to that, but then you're admitting that this Solar System is just a young version of very healthy, long-existing, functioning set of solar systems throughout the Universe, which kind of puts a damper on the concept of unique creation by a benevolent deity, doesn't it?

Perhaps. Or we can say something else since time and telescopes, etc. have been found wanting. It's the Cloud of the gap. Also, I think if you were more open-minded, you might not say statements I find inflammatory such as "all the data" supports the Oort Cloud. Not being able to see a Cloud of objects happens to be a big piece of data not in its favor!

Given the telescope technology that we have, what do you expect to find but the largest objects in the Kupier Belt? Nothing out there radiates any light of it's own. Nothing out there is massive enough to be obvious other that what we have already found, and trust me, those aren't just blatantly obvious. It takes a large amount of work just to find these objects. They are dark rocks resting against the backdrop of darkness, which is surrounded by even more darkness... As I said, wait until we get some better tools (which are being developed as I type this) and your questions will be answered.

We are only 2 months away from witnessing New Horizon's encounter with Pluto. It will be the first time in History that human eyes have seen any discernible details of the planet or its moon. Given that this photo was taken from a distance closer to Pluto than Venus is to the Sun, and only being two months away, traveling nearly 40,000 MPH for the last 7-8 years, this is still the best image that we have of Pluto and Charon:

Think about that for a minute and then tell me why you expect to easily find each and every Kuiper object.

It's not a Cloud of the Gaps concept for the very obvious reason that I just gave you several simple and reasonable examples of data which suggests that it's not merely a thought experiment. A Cloud of the Gaps would necessitate an absolute inability to give you those very simple examples.

Here's a counter challenge, without using theology or religious bias, show me some data which suggests that it's impossible for the Oort Cloud to exist. Show me some data that there are not solar objects which very obviously exist beyond the Kuiper Belt...

This is a bogus challenge, obviously, because you cannot un-show me data that I've already shown you. If I had nothing at all, then you could make that claim. The fact that I have something makes it a very plausible explanation. Admittedly, your only push-back comes from the fact that an old Solar System would shatter your religiously derived requirement of a younger solar system and Earth. Your issue, sir, is that your religious interpretation and bias necessitates these things to be something different from what they actually are, so you're spending an unproductive amount of time trying to disprove or discredit something that is very supported and sensical.

What you are really saying is, "Although Billiards Ball supports a 13.7 Billion year universe, he is calling to question a younger solar system, say, millions of years. This might also touch on his and my interpretation/understanding of religion, so I will assume the naturalist explanations for all solar system cosmology should bear fruit in due time, rather than say, allow that the solar system was created via intelligent design."

Well we both already know that though, don't we? The thing is, you're not making any valid headway with data to support your concept of a younger solar system other than positing what you believe to better fit your religious bias...

A simple reading of Jesus's parables... when names are given, real. Where names are omitted, allegory.

The Flood "allegory" has dozens of facts in Genesis 6-9 including names, duration of events, size and make of boat, types and numbers of species aboard boat, what God commanded Noah to do, when it happened, etc. It's a stretch to say it's poetic or allegorical.

Homer's Iliad and Odyssey contains incredible geographic and character details. It gives names, duration of events, numbers of ships, specific rulers of specific nations.. Surely those details make it obvious that Homer was writing about real events, right?... Would you admit it's a stretch to say that Homer's writing was merely poetic or allegorical?

Yes! Yes you would. So why can't you objectively view Christian mythology the same way?

Listen, you seem to be a rather intelligent individual. And if your explanations about your professional life are accurate, that intelligence would be even more supported. So why you choose this selective rationality with a bias towards one particular mythology, I don't understand. You seem able to easily rationalize other things, but when it comes to your preferred mythology, you stop being rational and start playing hoola-hoop mental games and bending over backwards, to the point of miscategorizing and misinterpreting data, in order to fit your religiously bound worldview.

Why?

 

[metis]

Allegory...well that raises then a few controversies that you would have to reconcile.
1/Genesis 6:13 After that God said to Noah: " I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.
Genesis 7:4 For in just seven days, I will make it rain on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, and I will wipe from the surface of the ground every living thing that I have made.
Was God just venting or making a threat he had no intention in carrying out?
Can God lie?

2/ we are told that Noah spent perhaps 50 years building a huge floating vessel of approximately 40,000 cubic metres for the survival of his family and a few animals. Why would this be recorded in such detail if it were mere allegory?

3/ we have the eye witness account of Jesus, who personally witnessed the event.
Matthew 24:37-39 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
Now if this was all mere allegory, Jesus words would have no real meaning or relevance, but if his words are true, and he claims to be the beginning of Gods creation, and thus has seen all of human history, how can you reconcile this account with it being just an allegory?

You miss the point that allegory typically is meant to read as if it were a true event, which is why the early church struggled with whether Jesus' parables were real events or myths. Also, such symbolism can move forth and be referred to as if a real event.

What we don't know and that which cannot be determined is whether the authors felt whether this was a real event or was allegory. Since they clearly were not there, and since the supposed event was probably carried orally for probably many centuries, we can't be certain what their mindset was on this. But whether they believed it to be real or not is really quite irrelevant as to why we find it in our scripture, so obviously there's something in the story that's important beyond whether it's a real event or not.

But today, it is nonsensical to take it as a real event because the story is preposterous if one takes it that way. To me, anyone who believes this as a real event is so gullible that they probably will be willing to believe in almost anything as long as it's packaged as "scripture". Very little of the story makes sense at that level, but it makes a great deal of sense at the symbolic level.

Many centuries before we knew anything about geology and even basic biology, Jewish sages recognized that there simply too many problems taking it at the literal level, so taking it as allegory is hardly "modernistic" theology. Moshe Maimonides, one of our greatest sages, many centuries ago concluded that it had to be symbolic because it makes no sense to take it literally, and he certainly has not been alone in that thinking.

 

[Salvador]

Salvador,
If you are truly a truth seeker, please, at least give consideration to my words.
The Bible is Univocal, meaning it tells only one story. Every scripture is related to every other scripture, Intertextualism, so every scriptures is Like a brush stroke of a master artist, it is a Magnum Opus, a masterpiece.
If you are a Christian you MUST believe what the Bible says, and not what some person says it says.
Consider the first two scriptures of Genesis.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then verse 2 starts telling about the process the earth went through to make it ready for mankind.
The time between the actual creation of the heavens and the earth and the time of preparing the earth are of different time periods. To many this is called, The Gap Theory. There can be billions of years that went by between the first and second verses of Genesis.
The Bible, being actually written by God, is above all other books, sententious, meaning filled with knowledge and wisdom.
First, notice the first verse, where it says, In THE beginning. The word the is usually meant to mean the very first of something,creation, in this context, but the actual word was A, In A beginning. When translating, often times, for continuity, the word the is used, and not to mean the very first of something. This is the case here. The beginning mentioned here was of the material universe, and not in the real beginning of God's creation in the universe.
The actual beginning of God's creating was the creation of Jesus, God's only begotten son, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14.
We understand this because The Bible tells us that EVERYTHING was created THROUGH Jesus and FOR Jesus, Col 1:16,17, Heb 1:2, John 1:3. Jesus is The WORD, John 1:1,14, Rev 19:13.
A very good point to remember is, Do not try to Dope Out answers by reasoning in your own mind. Trust in God's word, Prov 3:5,6, Ps 146:3,4, Gen 40:8, Jere 17:5-7. When you have all the scriptures that touch on a subject, you will be able to understand that subject.
Now concerning people that have lived on earth, the Bible says that Eve would become the mother of everyone living. This leaves out the possibility of someone living before Adam and Eve, Gen 3:20.
Concerning the SOUL. Contemplate what is actually said at Gen 2:7. Notice that Adam BECAME a living soul, he was not given a soul. By God forming him from the dust of the ground and blowing into him the breath of life, Adam became a living soul. The soul is definitely not immortal, Ezekiel 18:4,20, Ecc 3:18-20, 9:5,6,10.
As for the age of the earth.
Many times people want to believe something, or they truly believe something and they believe that the Bible says what they believe. If science has proven that what they believe is not true, they still want to hang onto this belief. This is called, Doctrinaireism, or Dogmatism. This makes religious people seem silly, because the facts have been proven by science. True science agrees exactly with the Bible!!?
Science believes that the Universe is 13 to 15 billions of years old and science can very well prove that the earth is around 4billion years old. Nothing written in the Bible disagrees with this.

The creation story in the bible for the first living soul (Adam) has been scientifically proven false.
According to the Bible, 1,948-1,956 years elapsed from the creation of Adam until the birth of Abraham ( Genesis ) , then 529-530 years elapsed from Abraham's birth until the Ten Commandments were written ( Genesis 17:1-4) , ( Galatians 3:17). 480 years passed after this time until King Solomon's Temple was built during the fourth year of his rule in Jerusalem. ( 1 Kings 6:1 ) According to the Bible, Solomon ruled Israel for another 36 years afterwards, and several other kings ruled Jerusalem all together for 394-412 years after Solomon until the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC. ( Kings 1 and 2 ) Thus, the Biblical date of creation for the first living soul (Adam) on Earth was 5,989-6,016 years ago. Of course, there is plenty of scientific evidence that living souls ( humans ) have existed long before some 6,000 years ago.

 

[Ouroboros]

Allegory...well that raises then a few controversies that you would have to reconcile.
1/Genesis 6:13 After that God said to Noah: " I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.
Genesis 7:4 For in just seven days, I will make it rain on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, and I will wipe from the surface of the ground every living thing that I have made.
Was God just venting or making a threat he had no intention in carrying out?
Can God lie?

That has a simple answer. In a story, any character can lie or tell the truth or fly or do miracles or eat spiders or wear pink in-the-dark-glowing slippers. How do you even know what God said to Noah? The author of the story, the writers of the book, all contributed and were part of putting the story down.

2/ we are told that Noah spent perhaps 50 years building a huge floating vessel of approximately 40,000 cubic metres for the survival of his family and a few animals. Why would this be recorded in such detail if it were mere allegory?

In the sci-fi book Ringworld, the size of the Ringworld is given to just as specific measurements. Now, that world doesn't exist. It's part of a story. But, how can it be just a story if Larry Niven was so exact with the measurements?

3/ we have the eye witness account of Jesus, who personally witnessed the event.

Have you talked them? Do you know them? What's their names, ages, home address, and what's their favorite food? Do you know anything about them? Do you have their written and signed testimonies?

Matthew 24:37-39 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
Now if this was all mere allegory, Jesus words would have no real meaning or relevance, but if his words are true, and he claims to be the beginning of Gods creation, and thus has seen all of human history, how can you reconcile this account with it being just an allegory?

Then answer this, Philo from Alexandria was a contemporary religious philosopher to Jesus. He wrote extensively about how Genesis and the flood were allegories. His writings were saved to our time because the early Christians saved them. They considered them important. So how can the early Christians see the importance of considering the Bible stories to be allegorical, and you cannot?

 

[Salvador]

6000 years is not very long. The Earth is 25000 miles in circumference. It is 8000 miles through the middle from end to end. The moon is 6000000 miles away, yet it is so large that we can still see it. One side of it always faces us. The other side always faces away from us. No, I do not think 6000 years is a very long time. There are 3000 year old trees that are still alive. There are clear indications that people have been around for much, much longer than 6000 years.

There is a bristle pine cone tree that has been dated as 6,500 years old, according to annual tree ring counts as well as Carbon-14 dating.

I take it that statements like "pyramids older than the Flood" mean you have accurate dating for both.

Please, tell all of us, what date BCE was the Flood? I've always wanted to know.

Thanks.

There were 292-300 years from the time of Noah's Flood until the birth of Abraham ( Genesis 11); then 529-530 years elapsed from Abraham's birth until the Ten Commandments were written ( Genesis 17:1-4) , ( Galatians 3:17). 480 years passed after this time until King Solomon's Temple was built during the fourth year of his rule in Jerusalem. ( 1 Kings 6:1 ) According to the Bible, Solomon ruled Israel for another 36 years afterwards, and several other kings ruled Jerusalem all together for 394-412 years after Solomon until the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC. ( Kings 1 and 2 ). Therefore, according to biblical chronology, the date of the flood would have been around 2,320-2345 BC.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not a stretch at all. Such narratives often include names and other bits of information. Plus, if taken literally, it makes not one iota of sense based on what we now know. The difference with Jesus' parables is that they are very brief because there's typically one point he was trying to make. The Flood narrative has many points, thus it is logical that it should be much longer, and if one only looks at it as being literal, they're probably missing some or many of these points. Whether Noah's ark literally existed or not makes not one iota of difference today, but the moral teachings do.

The moral teaching have to do with sin, judgment and redemption, ala the Noahic Flood.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since you know why it's unique from a naturalistic explanation, then why even ask the question. If you can figure it out, chances are other naturalists have as well.



Except there are plenty of evidences that it's not in the millions, and actually is billions of years old...

MACS0647-JD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - This galaxy is at the very least 13 billion light years away. It's formation timeline coincides with new data about the earliest star formation in the Universe. You know how light years work. That means light traveling from 647-JD has taken that long to get here. Now, you could make the argument that the Earth and the Solar System developed prior to that, but then you're admitting that this Solar System is just a young version of very healthy, long-existing, functioning set of solar systems throughout the Universe, which kind of puts a damper on the concept of unique creation by a benevolent deity, doesn't it?



Given the telescope technology that we have, what do you expect to find but the largest objects in the Kupier Belt? Nothing out there radiates any light of it's own. Nothing out there is massive enough to be obvious other that what we have already found, and trust me, those aren't just blatantly obvious. It takes a large amount of work just to find these objects. They are dark rocks resting against the backdrop of darkness, which is surrounded by even more darkness... As I said, wait until we get some better tools (which are being developed as I type this) and your questions will be answered.

We are only 2 months away from witnessing New Horizon's encounter with Pluto. It will be the first time in History that human eyes have seen any discernible details of the planet or its moon. Given that this photo was taken from a distance closer to Pluto than Venus is to the Sun, and only being two months away, traveling nearly 40,000 MPH for the last 7-8 years, this is still the best image that we have of Pluto and Charon:

Think about that for a minute and then tell me why you expect to easily find each and every Kuiper object.

It's not a Cloud of the Gaps concept for the very obvious reason that I just gave you several simple and reasonable examples of data which suggests that it's not merely a thought experiment. A Cloud of the Gaps would necessitate an absolute inability to give you those very simple examples.

Here's a counter challenge, without using theology or religious bias, show me some data which suggests that it's impossible for the Oort Cloud to exist. Show me some data that there are not solar objects which very obviously exist beyond the Kuiper Belt...

This is a bogus challenge, obviously, because you cannot un-show me data that I've already shown you. If I had nothing at all, then you could make that claim. The fact that I have something makes it a very plausible explanation. Admittedly, your only push-back comes from the fact that an old Solar System would shatter your religiously derived requirement of a younger solar system and Earth. Your issue, sir, is that your religious interpretation and bias necessitates these things to be something different from what they actually are, so you're spending an unproductive amount of time trying to disprove or discredit something that is very supported and sensical.



Well we both already know that though, don't we? The thing is, you're not making any valid headway with data to support your concept of a younger solar system other than positing what you believe to better fit your religious bias...



Homer's Iliad and Odyssey contains incredible geographic and character details. It gives names, duration of events, numbers of ships, specific rulers of specific nations.. Surely those details make it obvious that Homer was writing about real events, right?... Would you admit it's a stretch to say that Homer's writing was merely poetic or allegorical?

Yes! Yes you would. So why can't you objectively view Christian mythology the same way?

Listen, you seem to be a rather intelligent individual. And if your explanations about your professional life are accurate, that intelligence would be even more supported. So why you choose this selective rationality with a bias towards one particular mythology, I don't understand. You seem able to easily rationalize other things, but when it comes to your preferred mythology, you stop being rational and start playing hoola-hoop mental games and bending over backwards, to the point of miscategorizing and misinterpreting data, in order to fit your religiously bound worldview.

Why?

Homer does not include predictive prophecy that was fulfilled, say, in 1948 or 1967! Studying prophecy convinces me that Jesus is the Messiah and the Bible, the true Word of God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You miss the point that allegory typically is meant to read as if it were a true event, which is why the early church struggled with whether Jesus' parables were real events or myths. Also, such symbolism can move forth and be referred to as if a real event.

What we don't know and that which cannot be determined is whether the authors felt whether this was a real event or was allegory. Since they clearly were not there, and since the supposed event was probably carried orally for probably many centuries, we can't be certain what their mindset was on this. But whether they believed it to be real or not is really quite irrelevant as to why we find it in our scripture, so obviously there's something in the story that's important beyond whether it's a real event or not.

But today, it is nonsensical to take it as a real event because the story is preposterous if one takes it that way. To me, anyone who believes this as a real event is so gullible that they probably will be willing to believe in almost anything as long as it's packaged as "scripture". Very little of the story makes sense at that level, but it makes a great deal of sense at the symbolic level.

Many centuries before we knew anything about geology and even basic biology, Jewish sages recognized that there simply too many problems taking it at the literal level, so taking it as allegory is hardly "modernistic" theology. Moshe Maimonides, one of our greatest sages, many centuries ago concluded that it had to be symbolic because it makes no sense to take it literally, and he certainly has not been alone in that thinking.

1st century historians working for Rome noted how there were Christian Jews and proselytes going around preaching a literal, bodily resurrected Messiah.

 

[outhouse]

The moral teaching have to do with sin, judgment and redemption, ala the Noahic Flood.

That is right allegorically taught.

NOT LITERAL

 

[outhouse]

1st century historians working for Rome noted how there were Christian Jews and proselytes going around preaching a literal, bodily resurrected Messiah.

And spiritual.

It was common mythology before Jesus was even born.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is right allegorically taught.

NOT LITERAL

LOL!

It's literally allegorical.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is a bristle pine cone tree that has been dated as 6,500 years old, according to annual tree ring counts as well as Carbon-14 dating.

There were 292-300 years from the time of Noah's Flood until the birth of Abraham ( Genesis 11); then 529-530 years elapsed from Abraham's birth until the Ten Commandments were written ( Genesis 17:1-4) , ( Galatians 3:17). 480 years passed after this time until King Solomon's Temple was built during the fourth year of his rule in Jerusalem. ( 1 Kings 6:1 ) According to the Bible, Solomon ruled Israel for another 36 years afterwards, and several other kings ruled Jerusalem all together for 394-412 years after Solomon until the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC. ( Kings 1 and 2 ). Therefore, according to biblical chronology, the date of the flood would have been around 2,320-2345 BC.

See my multiple earlier posts re: "son of" and foolish assumptions made using genealogy. Of course, half the people here say the Bible stories are allegory and then shove their interpretations of the genealogies at us! It sounds like some are saying you are placing exact dating on allegory.

 

[Ouroboros]

It sounds like some are saying you are placing exact dating on allegory.

That's the hole point of this discussion. The story, and the genealogies, are all allegorical stories and not historical, literal, or scientific. In other words, the world flood didn't have to have happened for the story to have meaning. There wasn't a literal or historical Noah; it didn't have to be, and it doesn't have to be now either.

 

[Salvador]

Only Allah knows when the Earth was created.

Scientists have a good idea when the Earth was created. According to geologists, the Earth formed about 4.54 billion years ago. I think scientists are more useful to humankind than is God, because it seems to me that scientists reveal more scientific knowledge or useful information to humankind than does God's ancient Holy books such as the Bible or Quran.

 

[outhouse]

It sounds like some are saying you are placing exact dating on allegory

These text were collections of collection compiled and redacted so many times, you cannot date the book correctly without explaining it evolved and then try and attribute a finished date.

But im sitting here trying to explain academically someone who refuses most of it.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Scientists have a good idea when the Earth was created. According to geologists, the Earth formed about 4.54 billion years ago. I think scientists are more useful to humankind than is God, because it seems to me that scientists reveal more scientific knowledge or useful information to humankind than does God's ancient Holy books such as the Bible or Quran.

I dont take the words of scientists. Only the words of Allah swt and his messenger pbuh.

 

[metis]

The moral teaching have to do with sin, judgment and redemption, ala the Noahic Flood.

But sin, judgement, and redemption are not reliant on just the Flood narrative as these reoccur throughout the Tanakh.

 

[metis]

1st century historians working for Rome noted how there were Christian Jews and proselytes going around preaching a literal, bodily resurrected Messiah.

Which has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

 

[outhouse]

I dont take the words of scientists. Only the words of Allah swt and his messenger pbuh.

We understand the fanaticism and fundamentalism that fights academia and credible education.

 

[Salvador]

So where is the evidence for it?
And why do we have a very detailed understanding of human civilization from it's first emergence until now? There are plenty of civilizations that have been wiped out by cataclysmic events, yet we still have evidence for them.

Unless the Biblical flood also had magic water, which dissolved everything on the planet in a matter of just a couple months... But if that were the case, how did the fossilized remains of all of the organisms of pre-history not get destroyed?

There's just no two ways around it, man. The Genesis deluge never happened.

There's 47,000,000 cubic kilometers of water in the Earth's water cycle that is in the form of continental ice, snow, underground water and water vapor. The surface of the Earth is 510,000,000 kilometers. If all the Earth's continental ice and snow were to melt at the same time that all the Earth's underground water were to surface simultaneously along with all the Earth's atmospheric water vapor liquefying to its surface, then the Earth's sea level would rise about 90 meters or 300 feet. The world's tallest mountain is 29,000 feet. A 300 feet increase in sea level would come nowhere close to submerging Mount Everest. According to an elevation map of the world, over 90 percent of the world's land mass is more than 300 feet above sea level; therefore, there is not even enough water in all of the Earth's water cycle that could have been used to submerge only 10 percent of the Earth's current land mass. There's simply not enough water in the Earth's water cycle that could cause a global flood.