Posted on 02/06/2014 8:33:34 AM PST by PapaNew
Creationist Ken Ham is having his 15 minutes, following a live debate on evolution held between himself and Bill Nye “The Science Guy” on Tuesday.
And while you’d expect most folks to deem Nye the winner (which they have), Ham is receiving criticism from a source you might not expect: televangelist Pat Robertson.
On the Wednesday edition of his TV show, “The 700 Club,” Robertson indirectly implored Ham to put a sock in it, criticizing Ham’s view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
“Let’s face it, there was a bishop [James Ussher] … who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years,” Robertson began. “There ain’t no way that’s possible … To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”
“We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that’s found in science,” Robertson continued, “and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”
“Let’s be real,” Robertson begged, “let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
The science inquiry itself must be neutral to be valid IMO. But I as an observer of the results express what I've seen, quoted by you above.
Go ahead...
We are waiting...
It appears that he is on your side.
Karl Spooner: "There was no reason for Christ to correct the Bilbe [sic] because he never read that the Earth was the age that you imply."
~~~
Correct. it was not until some 1600-odd years LATER that James Ussher (1581-1656), published his mind-barf upon which "Young Earth" Creationism is based.
Here, in Ussher's own, inimitable words and "logic", (and run-on near-sentences) are the root source of "Young Earth" Creationism:
For as much as our Christian epoch falls many ages after the beginning of the world, and the number of years before that backward is not only more troublesome, but (unless greater care be taken) more lyable to errour; also it hath pleased our modern chronologers, to adde to that generally received hypothesis (which asserted the Julian years, with their three cycles by a certain mathematical prolepsis, to have run down to the very beginning of the world) an artificial epoch, framed out of three cycles multiplied in themselves; for the Solar Cicle being multiplied by the Lunar, or the number of 28 by 19, produces the great Paschal Cycle of 532 years, and that again multiplied by fifteen, the number of the indiction, there arises the period of 7980 years, which was first (if I mistake not) observed by Robert Lotharing, Bishop of Hereford, in our island of Britain, and 500 years after by Joseph Scaliger fitted for chronological uses, and called by the name of the Julian Period, because it conteined a cycle of so many Julian years. Now if the series of the three minor cicles be from this present year extended backward unto precedent times, the 4713 years before the beginning of our Christian account will be found to be that year into which the first year of the indiction, the first of the Lunar Cicle, and the first of the Solar will fall. Having placed there fore the heads of this period in the kalends of January in that proleptick year, the first of our Christian vulgar account must be reckoned the 4714 of the Julian Period, which, being divided by 15. 19. 28. will present us with the 4 Roman indiction, the 2 Lunar Cycle, and the 10 Solar, which are the principal characters of that year.We find moreover that the year of our fore-fathers, and the years of the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews were of the same quantity with the Julian, consisting of twelve equal moneths, every of them conteining 30 days, (for it cannot be proved that the Hebrews did use lunary moneths before the Babylonian Captivity) adjoying to the end of the twelfth moneth, the addition of five dayes, and every four year six. And I have observed by the continued succession of these years, as they are delivered in holy writ, that the end of the great Nebuchadnezars and the beginning of Evilmerodachs (his sons) reign, fell out in the 3442 year of the world, but by collation of Chaldean history and the astronomical cannon, it fell out in the 186 year c Nabonasar, and, as by certain connexion, it must follow in the 562 year before the Christian account, and of the Julian Period, the 4152. and from thence I gathered the creation of the world did fall out upon the 710 year of the Julian Period, by placing its beginning in autumn: but for as much as the first day of the world began with the evening of the first day of the week, I have observed that the Sunday, which in the year 710 aforesaid came nearest the Autumnal Æquinox, by astronomical tables (notwithstanding the stay of the sun in the dayes of Joshua, and the going back of it in the dayes c Ezekiah) happened upon the 23 day of the Julian October; from thence concluded that from the evening preceding that first day of the Julian year, both the first day of the creation and the first motion of time are to be deduced.
— J. Ussher, The Annals of the World iv (1658)
Got it? That 15th-century mind-barf was the source of the famous "6,000 year old Earth"...
~~~~~~~~~~~
The secular world believes that the earth spins on its axis daily. Instead, the firmament revolves around the earth daily. The sun, moon and stars are enclosed in the firmament and they each have their own individual orbit inside the moving firmament. The firmament also oscillates up and down yearly causing summer and winter.
SUN
“From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same” (Psalms 113:3)
“The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof” (Ps. 50:1)
“And when the sun was going down” (Gen.15:12)
“where the sun goeth down” (Deut. 11:30 and Deut.24:13)
“and the sun went down” (Judges 19:14)
“the sun went down” (2 Samuel 2:24)
“of the morning, when the sun riseth” (2 Samuel 23:4)
“about the going down of the sun” (1 Kings 22:36)
“The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiates 1:5)
“when the sun ariseth” (Nahum 3:17)
“from the rising of the sun” (Malachi 1:11)
“his glory from the rising of the sun” (Isaiah 59:19)
“and the sun shall go down” (Micah 3:6)
http://www.geocentricbible.com
If I said something wrong here, please forgive me.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3119934/posts?page=33#33
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3119934/posts?page=57#57
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3119934/posts?page=211#211
And in we go....
I’m a young earther and the Bible is very clear that the creation took 6 days. Either we believe what the Bible tells us or not and that’s up to each of us to decide.
Re-creation is not supported by any scripture either.
Get the book Refuting Compromise by Jonathan Sarfati (On Amazon for under $15) and read it for yourself. He goes right at every issue that supports an old earth and takes them apart. But don’t believe me check it out for yourself.
I’ve always said and I try to stick with it that all my beliefs are put on the table to debate. I’d rather find out I’m wrong NOW rather then LATER if you know what I mean. :)
JB
No apology needed from you, Sir!!
You were right on target; you said nothing wrong at all. In fact, I posted in support of your statement: "There was no reason for Christ to correct the Bilbe [sic] because he never read that the Earth was the age that you imply."
Thank you for your kind and humbling offer, but, I'm with you!
Well, we will kick some butt someday, that’s for sure. Thanks for your understanding about what I did.
"Geocentric Bible" ?
Where's the link to the "Four-cornered Flat Earth Bible"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sigh...
The age of things is also irrelevant to the debate between creationism and Darwinism. The issue there is not the age of things but the origin of living things.
Although off point, the age of things is still an interesting discussion. The age of the earth may be biblically distinguished from the age of creation as we know it beginning with Genesis 1:2. Note that beginning with Genesis 1:2, the earth was already there (water covered the earth). There is no time fame mentioned in Genesis 1:1-2. It is therefore very plausible that the earth was created eons ago and that creation as we now know it upon the earth beginning with Genesis 1:2 happened about 6000 years ago.
Sure. I just referenced <4.6B years because 4.6B years appears to be a 'religiously' held value - and there is more evidence that refutes the 4.6B year number. There also are a few data points that are consistent with a ~10,000 year old earth.
The 6000 year old claim is flat earth... it doesn’t hold up the most basic evidence and isn’t based on any.
Sure it is. It is based on God's Word. An eyewitness account by someone who was there and someone who is entirely trustworthy. 10,000 years is consistent with the amount of Helium in our atmosphere (given the escape and generation rates), the Magnetic Field on Earth (not having to invoke a perpetual motion machine to maintain the Magnetic Field strength), the existence of comets (snowballs that orbit the Sun And not having to invent a mythical Oort cloud to replenish the comet supply), as well as several other phenomena (that escape me at the moment).
Human Writing is more than 6,000 years old,
What is the basis of this claim? How reliable is the proof?
God's Word is reliable and trustworthy.
The 6000 year claim is about as meaningful as that map another person made showing a body over the city where Jesus was believed buried and declaring he was buried where the heart of the body would be.
Sorry - that analogy escapes me. Jesus is not buried. He is risen and sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. But I get the drift -- you reject that the Earth is on the order of 6000 years old.
There is sound scientific evidence that Gobekli Tepe is at least twelve thousand years old. And there are ritual imagery at both Gobekli Tepe and Easter Island, marking the Statuary at Eastern Island to the epoch twelve thousand years ago.
I still think the best proof of the Earths age being over 6000 years will come from the Gaia space mission. While I believe the other evidence is overwhelming, each piece by itself seems hard to completely understand. Do I know why astronomers are confident that the red shift of distant galaxies gives a good approximation of their age? Generally, maybe, but at some level I do end up just trusting their observations.
Parallax on the other hand is something we have all experienced.
Anyone who doesn’t wish to believe something will always be able to come up with a counter argument, but the contortions will be increasingly uncomfortable.
“The fourth day of creation repudiates any notion of heliocentricity. Since time had previously been determined by the movement of light around the earth, hermeneutics demands that time still be determined by the movement of light, whatever its source, around the earth. Scripture is openly geocentric.”
Yikes!
Thank you for keeping me in the loop, dear brother in Christ!
Karl, you claim that Jesus 'never read that the Earth was the age that you imply.' Unfortunately, you are incorrect there. Firstly, if you call yourself by the name of Christ, them by definition, you acknowledge Him as God. As God, being Eternal AND having created the Earth, He would most certainly know the 'when' of Creation. We know from Luke 4 that Jesus read from Isaiah 61:1-2, proclaiming the fulfillment of that prophecy. He also calls Himself God in many additional Scriptures. If you choose not to believe what He said well, that is YOUR problem. Only YOU can choose for yourself, if you believe Him.
Secondly, in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus quotes [a] Genesis 1:27 and [b]Genesis 2:24: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]?" As these quoted verses match the current Tanakh, one may presume that today's Genesis 1, is close to the Genesis 1 from Jesus' time of ministry on Earth. This is further evidenced from the Dead Sea scrolls, where the only variance with the Masoretic Text in the Creation story is in Genesis 1:9 which adds "and dry land appeared" (Source). If you choose to believe that this is a corrupted quote in the New Testament, I refer you to 2 Timothy 3:16 and Matthew 5:18.
Karl and TXnMA: Genesis 4-6, lists the people and the length of their lives, dates of birth, etc. from Cain and Abel up to the flood, Genesis 7-11 details the flood and post-flood. Jesus quoted from 24 of the 39 books of the Tanakh, so He was well versed in it, as one would expect of God, whose book it is!
TXnMA: The people of Jesus time believed that the Creation story was correct, so Jesus did not correct them on it. Where He DID correct people, was on interpretation of the Law, especially by the Pharisees. Note His comments in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 5-7).
Long before Ussher, and long after, Christians believed in a young Earth. For example, many based the Earth's age on the Septuagint: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC).
Between the 10th and 18th centuries, after the publication of the Masoretic Texts, the calculations were closer to 4000BC. Among them were: Maimonides (4058 BC), Louis Cappel (4005 BC), James Ussher (4004 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (27 April, 3977 BC) [based on his book Mysterium], Melanchthon (3964 BC), Martin Luther (3961 BC), John Lightfoot (3960 BC), Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949 BC), Christoph Helvig (3947 BC), Gerardus Mercator (3928 BC), Matthieu Brouard (3927 BC), Benito Arias Montano (3849 BC), Andreas Helwig (3836 BC), David Gans (3761 BC) and Gershom ben Judah (3754 BC). Did they all suffer from 'mind-barf' as you so inelegantly put it?
Even Origen and Augustine, who believe the Creation story to be an allegory, thought that Earth was relatively new, less than 10,000 years old. Calvin, Luther and other Reformers believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Belief in an 'old Earth' is a product of the so-called 'enlightenment'.
The problem becomes, if you believe that the Creation story is wrong, what else do you disbelieve about the Bible? Was Jesus just a man? Did He perform any miracles? Did He even exist? If all scripture is God-breathed, and God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, how can there be an error in the Bible? Where do you draw the line? It is a slippery slope that brings to mind that question asked in the garden, as found in Genesis 3:1: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
The young-earthism and the secular liberalism, those two diametrically opposed responses to the great crisis, both absurdist in their own ways, received all the attention... but if you lack that prior commitment to interpreting absolute truth subjectively, the great big dilemma would seem not to exist, and there arises the question of a "third way", which I think is the key to our future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.