time for Genesis chap 1. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

drussell52 -> time for Genesis chap 1. (9/15/2008 4:27:17 PM)

I am asking this question more to understand or be informed, not to start a wild hot bed of controversy. Some assert that Abraham and the early chapters of Genesis let's say, go back to about 5000 or 6000 years. Is this creationism at the extreme end of the continuum? Is it possible we don't know when exactly the first day was, or can carbon dating and aspects of evolution be compatible with the timing of creation? My wife and I are in a study that seems to support the extremist view on creation. Thanks for the clarification in advance. (Drussell)



drmark -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/15/2008 9:59:07 PM)

quote:

Some assert that Abraham and the early chapters of Genesis let's say, go back to about 5000 or 6000 years.
A straight-forward reading of the plain sense meaning of the Genesis account and the various Biblical genealogies allows one to calculate the age of the universe at about 6000 years. This has been most widely publicized through the writings of James Ussher in the 1640s.

quote:

Is this creationism at the extreme end of the continuum?
I'm not sure I understand your question, Drussel. Is truth extreme? What is the "continuum of creationism"? If God did not create the universe and everything in it, then is there more than one alternative correct explanation?

quote:

Is it possible we don't know when exactly the first day was, or can carbon dating and aspects of evolution be compatible with the timing of creation?
Has God told us the "exact date" of the first day? Why should a faulty and often inaccurate human-derived dating procedure be applied to the timing of creation? What "aspects of evolution" do you and your wife find compatible with Biblical creationism?



unclemonkey -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/16/2008 10:01:49 AM)

ORIGINAL:drussell52
quote:

Is it possible we don't know when exactly the first day was, or can carbon dating and aspects of evolution be compatible with the timing of creation?

Personally I think God’s word more reliable than any man made dating scheme. God’s word provides us with sufficient information to conclude six 24 hour days of creation approximately 6,000 years ago.

As far as evolution is concerned it depends on which definition of “evolution” you are referring to. If you are referring to a wide variety of dogs being descended from one generic dog kind then it fits perfectly. In that case “variation” is a much more appropriate term but isn’t used by evolutionists because it makes the “bait and switch” con game a much harder scam to run.

If you are referring to the definition of “evolution” that claims that humans share a common ancestor with apes then it doesn’t fit with the Bible at all. It is a satanic ploy to discredit the Genesis account of creation. The first 11 Chapters of Genesis provide the foundation for EVERY major Christian doctrine.
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” – Psalms 11:3



DanJames -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/16/2008 4:46:54 PM)

Ussher's chronology starts to rely a bit more on written records once we get to Solomon's time. Written history is uncertain enough to allow for some wiggle room in there, but there's definitely an upper limit of 10,000 years.



drmark -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/16/2008 4:49:22 PM)

quote:

Ussher's chronology starts to rely a bit more on written records once we get to Solomon's time.
Are you intimating that durations of time as recorded in the Pentateuch are unreliable?



DanJames -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/16/2008 5:06:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Ussher's chronology starts to rely a bit more on written records once we get to Solomon's time.
Are you intimating that durations of time as recorded in the Pentateuch are unreliable?

How far to the chronologies in The Pentateuch go? Solomon was in Kings, and I don't think that there are any time lines given after Solomon. At that point, we'd have to rely on written records to verify when things happened.



drmark -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/16/2008 6:53:23 PM)

Well, Genesis chapter 5 appears very chronological to me. By simple arithmetic, there were 1656 years from Adam's creation to the Noahic Flood.

Oh, now I get it! So are you pointing out that human records comprise the majority of Ussher's timeline after Solomon? What about the Northern Kingdom genealogies listed in 2 Chronicles? Interesting point, DJ! Is that compliment a satisfactory substitute for the Coke I owe you?



DanJames -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/17/2008 7:54:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Well, Genesis chapter 5 appears very chronological to me. By simple arithmetic, there were 1656 years from Adam's creation to the Noahic Flood.

Oh, now I get it! So are you pointing out that human records comprise the majority of Ussher's timeline after Solomon? What about the Northern Kingdom genealogies listed in 2 Chronicles? Interesting point, DJ! Is that compliment a satisfactory substitute for the Coke I owe you?

It's a topic I have yet to put much thought into. I just read a quick note somewhere that Ussher's timeline starts to rely on historical dates matched to events recorded in the Bible in order to establish his timeline. So far as the Bible is concerned we can be certain of the dates, but our knowledge of history has potential to be helplessly skewed, so far as some of the archeologists I've spoken to can say.



unclemonkey -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/24/2008 4:23:35 PM)

ORIGINAL:DanJames
quote:

quote:

DJ! Is that compliment a satisfactory substitute for the Coke I owe you?

It's a topic I have yet to put much thought into.

Don’t you think you ought to? I doubt Doc enjoys having that hanging over his head for so long.



DanJames -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/25/2008 8:29:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:DanJames
quote:

quote:

DJ! Is that compliment a satisfactory substitute for the Coke I owe you?

It's a topic I have yet to put much thought into.

Don’t you think you ought to? I doubt Doc enjoys having that hanging over his head for so long.

I suppose in context it does look like I was saying that I haven't put a lot of thought into the Coke that he owed me, but actually I didn't comment on the Coke comment, I was saying that I hadn't put much thought into Ussher's timeline. Sorry Doc and Unc about the missunderstanding. Doc is always lifting my spirits with his positive support, and that'll beat a Coke any day.



drmark -> RE: time for Genesis chap 1. (9/25/2008 8:54:57 AM)

Thank you, DanJ, for your kind words! I've been beat up pretty good on some recent doctrinal threads so it's nice to hear someone say I'm "positive" in anything I'm posting. Have a great day!



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI