Erf,

I am asking, if you as a Christian believe the earth is ~6k years old, and how you reconcile that with scientific findings. I linked to Ussher because you said the bible does not imply an age.

As for your, "you don't believe in it so how can use it against me".....do you have to believe in a fairy tale to be able to point out logical fallacies in it's story?

The question stands: How do you reconcile the belief that the earth is 6k years old with scientific findings? It's really not a complicated question.

There could be and probably are places in the universe where the age of the entire universe is only 6000 years old.

read that again

and i honestly think im being leveled after that

But not Earth, so what's your point?

EDIT: Damn, didn't catch the 'entire universe' part. Maybe you just meant that one part of it is 6k years old. If so, my post still stands.

What? Do you really think time progresses at the same pace everywhere in the universe?

We continually adjust the clocks on GPS satelittes because they run slower than the ones on earth. Time is progressing slower for them.

I never said it was precise, but I think it's safe to say whether it's 6000 years, 12000 years, or even 50,000 years, it's definitely not the 13-14 billion years we get from science.

(anxiously awaiting your next apologetic denial)

OK so you are rejecting carbon dating and the fossil record? Based on "it could be 6k years somewhere else"

Time is relative to motion. This is not the same as saying time moves slower or faster in one location vs. another.

Nope cause the fossil can be millions of years old and if you teleported it somewhere else it could be older than the universe itself. We live in a strange place.

No, I'm just saying its pointless to debate the age of creation.

So god moved a bunch of fossils onto earth that dated back millions of years to test our faith?

Time moves slower if you move faster. Time also moves slower if you are next to a massive object. You age faster on mars than you do on earth because the gravity well of earth is greater than the gravity well of mars.

I'm just saying its pointless to debate the age of the creation of the universe.

Ussher did what was for a long time (still?) considered the most precise estimate of the literal Biblical timeline, so using him to make the point that the Bible says the Earth is really ****ing young isn't a poor strategy.

This is all detracting from the point that you basically are claiming that in order to cite the Bible in a discussion ABOUT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS you must first believe it to be true.

Not really, assuming rizeagainst really wants to know.

I don't believe the earth is ~6k years old. I'm sure the science on this is accurate enough to say that the earth really is ~4 billion years old.

Yes, and your thread says: So I ask where you get this idea that the earth is 6,ooo years old, because the Bible doesn't say it is. Now obviously you have heard that the Bible implies this because you make a thread about it. But what you're missing is that the Bible doesn't imply anything. Bishop Ussher attempts to calculate an age but uses a literal interpretation in doing so. So in fact, what you are basing your thread off of is what you've heard someone else say and not what the Bible itself says.

You also say, The Bible may implicitly reveal an age of the earth but only when using a literal interpretation. And not to knock most Christians, but if Bishop Ussher came out with a new calculation these same Christians would be believing what he now says. Look at what I posted again: And tell me this doesn't make SENSE. Bishop Ussher doesn't believe this.

But you're not pointing out a logical fallacy in the Bible's story. You're pointing out a logical fallacy in a persons opinion.

You're right, it's not. I don't believe the earth is ~6,ooo years old.

Look, we can make this really easy. Perhaps I should have started with this.

Do you (as a christian) believe the earth is 6k years old?
If no, a comment is not needed.
If yes, how do you reconcile contrasting scientific findings?

thank you, all i wanted to know

whos next

I find this alarmingly ironic: That ego will cost you. Look at the error..

Ohhhh, now that's using your noggin'. You're probably safe though..

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore

rizeagainst tried to tell me I was wrong for what I said.

And by his evidence (the link to Ussher) he showed me proof (that I was wrong).

And his proof was something that meant nothing, because he himself didn't even believe in the validity of what he was showing me.

So then..

how was I proven wrong..

when the proof given wasn't even taken seriously?

And if it wasn't taken seriously..

might IT be wrong?

So I ask again, I can't make it any clearer then this.

So if you still are confused... LET'S DROP IT!

I think Erf's saying the Ussher guy is a lunatic? That's what I meant with my "ahaha" post, anyway. I mean, from the article it seems that Ussher is doing all this just prove the Jesuits wrong. And that Ussher thinks that Catholicism isn't Christianity.

I'm sure Christians believe that the earth is 6000 years old, but I don't think using that guy as a source is a good idea.

This is probably a question for SMP, but those places would be 6,000 years old relative to us or relative to themselves?

Big Erf,

Do you believe in flying unicorns that pee Jack Daniels and poop $100 bills?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The majority of Christians do not know what I am about to share.

This will answer your question. If you really are looking for an answer?

Or are you just looking for a excuse NOT to believe?

I mean no insult by that, but alot of these questions get asked because the person asking them BELIEVES that no one can answer them. And If no one can answer the question then the Asker of the question must be right! Which is probably true for the majority of the masses of Christians.

The words "was without form and void" should actually be translated "became without form and void"

In the Hebrew language there is no word for "was", these exact words "without form and void" are the translation of the Hebrew words "tohuw va bohuw" Which are used other places in the bible.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

The words "not in vain" are the same words as in Gen 1:2 which says it "WAS without form and void", "without form" is the word "tohuw" in Hebrew meaning:

1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

a) formlessness (of primeval earth)

1) nothingness, empty space

b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)

c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

d) place of chaos

e) vanity

God said He created the heaven and earth "NOT IN VAIN", in Isaiah, He created it not "tohuw" not formless, empty, nothingness. He created it perfect but it somehow BECAME formless and void because of WAR in Heaven....

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

When God originally created the heaven and earth He created it PERFECT.

God is perfect and what HE makes is perfect. But before the fall of man, meaning Adam and Eve, there was WAR in heaven and the devil was cast out of God's kingdom in heaven, because of the intensity of this WAR the whole fabric of the universe was upset.

Therefore the earth became without form and void.

It was not originally created that way. Then in Gen 1:3 God begins to rebuild it by speaking light into being.

There is a time span between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 and the length of it very possibly could be millions of years but from Adam and Eve on which most people think is the beginning of time, is actually around roughly 6000 years.

This is HOW the earth could be very, very, very, old and yet still not disprove the bible.

All the prehistoric men and dinasours were BEFORE Adam and Eve.

Scientist have proven that the Neaderthal man IS NOT related to Adam and Eve but that his genetic make up is completely different than ours today.

I can back this up scientifically if you need the evidence which I am sure you will probably want. But I can gaurantee you NO ONE has probably ever told you what I just did.

Pletho

Yes, which still demonstrates nothing. The Bible is an account of creation in our frame of reference. The time line of events is the universe as observed from that perspective.

Sorry son, that dog don't hunt.