jckstraw72 wrote:Every possible dating method points to an old earth and old universe.
every dating method has the assumption that the present is the key to the past. with the Orthodox understanding of the fall of creation adn the worldwide flood this assumption doesnt work.[/code]
So you believe that the fall of man somehow made nuclear decay rates suddenly accelarate and then stabillize? Again, how do you know that the universe wasn't created ten minutes ago?
I'm comfortable in believing that the earth is ancient, and find nothing in Scripture to indicate otherwise. When you learn more of the meaning of the original Hebrew, you'll come to agree.
Peace.
I'm comfortable in believing that the earth is ancient, and find nothing in Scripture to indicate otherwise. When you learn more of the meaning of the original Hebrew, you'll come to agree.
why do so many Fathers disagree with you then?
I know the length of days isnt the most important issue, but i really see absolutely no reason to believe in an old earth, especially considering the universal concensus of the Fathers that the earth is roughly 7500 yrs old, as indicated on Church calendars.
jckstraw72 wrote:why do so many Fathers disagree with you then?
Ask yourself, why do so many fathers disagree with you?
jckstraw72 wrote:the universal concensus of the Fathers that the earth is roughly 7500 yrs old
Please, show me the verse of Scripture explaining that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Where does the Bible claim to be an accurate measure of the universe's age?
If you'd like to learn more of how an old earth interpretation is not only compatible, but supported by, the Scriptures:
Peace.
Please, show me the verse of Scripture explaining that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Where does the Bible claim to be an accurate measure of the universe's age?
that added up dates and genealogies and whatnot. besides literal days or long days and all that....do you know of any Father who actually believed in an earth older than 10,000 yrs old?
and not so many Fathers disagree with me--a handful do, but many more dont. i know of about 15 Fathers who specifically beleived in literal days, and many others just didnt say what a day meant when commenting on Genesis. Logic would tell us they meant a real day, otherwise they would have explained what they meant.
jckstraw72 wrote:that added up dates and genealogies and whatnot.
The Genesis Genealogies
by Dr. John Millam[1]
In 1650, James Ussher, the archbishop of Ireland came up with a detailed timeline for all the events in the Bible, going all the way back to the creation of man and the universe. According to Ussher’s chronology, Adam and Eve were created in the year 4,004 BC. In order to date backwards from Abraham to Adam and Eve, he made use of the genealogies given in Genesis 5 and 11. A critical assumption that he made in his interpretation was that these two genealogies were complete (that is, that they contained no gaps or missing names).[2] Are these genealogies indeed complete as Ussher assumed?
Biblical genealogies are numerous and yet they are probably the most often ignored and least studied portions of the Bible. Most people find genealogies to be uninteresting and difficult to apply to current circumstances. The nature and function of Biblical genealogies is also very different from modern genealogies, which can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. For example, telescoping (leaving out some names for the sake of brevity) is common in Biblical genealogies but is rare in modern genealogies. Similarly, the key genealogical terms (such as “son” and “father”) have much broader meanings then their corresponding English words. An accurate understanding of Biblical genealogies is difficult, yet it is important for understanding of scripture.[3] Having a proper understanding of Biblical genealogies is prerequisite to attempting to address the Genesis genealogies...
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... gies.shtml
jckstraw72 wrote:do you know of any Father who actually believed in an earth older than 10,000 yrs old?
The church fathers had more important things to worry about than determining the exact age of the earth. Oftentimes, when the fathers attempted to determine when God created the earth, they connected it to when they believed that Christ would return.
Here is one example:
Lactantius
"Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’" (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).
Did Jesus return in the year 2000?
Peace.
