How old is the Earth? ( old as dirt of course :-)

[Michal Ptacnik]

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/index_files/image004.jpg

PROVIDED that the stories are real, which is a big "if" there seems to be a worldwide tradition of a long day, though MUCH less widespread than the flood tradition. I'd see a problem if I were a literalist with the time of the sun's stopping at 9 AM, but it is interesting nevertheless. Unless the data is corrupted for some reason.

[Dok]

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/index_files/image004.jpg

PROVIDED that the stories are real, which is a big "if" there seems to be a worldwide tradition of a long day, though MUCH less widespread than the flood tradition. I'd see a problem if I were a literalist with the time of the sun's stopping at 9 AM, but it is interesting nevertheless. Unless the data is corrupted for some reason.

IF? You have histories that record the same event as it would have happened in their part of the world, depending on if the sun was up or down or at sun rise or dusk. All the histories match the appropriate place on the planet where they would have been recorded at the time of the event. Even NASA believes this happened.  super science nerds, and they believe it.

[Michal Ptacnik]

As of the NASA... http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/

And the evidence... well, the trouble is, I don't see anywhere the cultural evidence brought up by other people than Christian (and usually geocentrist) apologetics. And as the above site will point out, there are other troubles with the concept of a long day, not the least one, at least for you, being: Genesis 8:22 "While earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

See, if god could break his own law on a prayer request, he could easily do this for our sake and save us against our free will or make for us a different law that would not condemn 99% of people to Hell. What would that make God? Well, a hypocrite AND an indirect murderer!

Actually, the Eternal Hell doctrine itself, as I tried to prove it here and elsewhere has already accomplished this without even this problem, but that is a different story altogether.

[mbacolas]

IF? You have histories that record the same event as it would have happened in their part of the world, depending on if the sun was up or down or at sun rise or dusk. All the histories match the appropriate place on the planet where they would have been recorded at the time of the event. Even NASA believes this happened.  super science nerds, and they believe it.

mustve been some kind of planetary crustal shift. but of course anything science or logic cant explain god can

[Dok]

As of the NASA... http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/

And the evidence... well, the trouble is, I don't see anywhere the cultural evidence brought up by other people than Christian (and usually geocentrist) apologetics. And as the above site will point out, there are other troubles with the concept of a long day, not the least one, at least for you, being: Genesis 8:22 "While earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

See, if god could break his own law on a prayer request, he could easily do this for our sake and save us against our free will or make for us a different law that would not condemn 99% of people to Hell. What would that make God? Well, a hypocrite AND an indirect murderer!

yet it happened.

[Dok]

mustve been some kind of planetary crustal shift. but of course anything science or logic cant explain god can

im glad that you are changing your opinion some. 

[agentbluescreen]

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity seems to provide a very good explanation.  Space and time appear to be curved in the presence of matter/energy (technically, in the presence of matter/energy and pressure).

Einstein and his show-off buddy Lorentz both shot themselves in the head with that one, and both you and the are and were completely wrong.

The Universe is not merely bounded by four dimensions (width, height, depth and spacetime) those lower four dimensions are the contents of the fifth, omnipresent and All-Containing one, which is loving, attractive, creative  "Gravitation" which form, design, contain, control and define all things, being, observation and dimensions of Themselves.

"Their" are the antecedent causality or "marriage" which are the Union of the Risen and Submerged Forms, the "I am that I am", the "ATEN", motherhood and fatherhood of all that is, The All Itself, Our Parentage, "G-d" (or whatever other queerly misogynistic noble-corporatist "name" some noble priesthood cult would wish to apply to Them).

The two theories may be quite compatible yet.  Somehow, I doubt the fianl theory if there ever is one will support mythological fundamentalism on planet Earth.

BTW, if you want a hint about a point in common between the two theories check out the "law of entropy".  That's just a suggestion.  Good luck, monkey boys.

There is a single, final explanation and They are neither myth nor theory, but inescapable causalities that are as simple as All
Love Itself, Themselves.  (the complex arithmetic of 1 + 1)

[mbacolas]

well im not a bigot, if i am shown facts and evidence then my opinion sways. Im ok with being wrong sometimes, my ultimate goal in life is the pursuit of truth although i fear noone can ever really get to the ultimate truth but thats a whole nother topic.

Remeber like a parachute, a mind works better when its open

[Michal Ptacnik]

yet it happened.

Since Churchianity (ironically both Catholic and Protestant varieties) is essentially a maltheistic religion, I am glad you are a sincere maltheist and have no problem with your god being a hypocrite and a murderer.

Actually I am not glad, because it is a slander of the real God and your salvation suffers, though I am glad it works for you at least to an extend, and that at least your conscience is not divided up against itself; with an evil god, Churchianity makes sense and there is no need to have problems with the faith.

Look, as far as I am concerned, I'd be more glad if the miracle DID happen, but there are geological as well as astronomical problem that make it very unlikely.

[citizenx]

There is a single, final explanation and They are neither myth nor theory, but inescapable causalities that are as simple as All
Love Itself, Themselves.  (the complex arithmetic of 1 + 1)

Sounds like a Hallmark card (trademark registered).

You don't really do science much do you?

[Dok]

Since Churchianity (ironically both Catholic and Protestant varieties) is essentially a maltheistic religion, I am glad you are a sincere maltheist and have no problem with your god being a hypocrite and a murderer.

Actually I am not glad, because it is a slander of the real God and your salvation suffers, though I am glad it works for you at least to an extend, and that at least your conscience is not divided up against itself; with an evil god, Churchianity makes sense and there is no need to have problems with the faith.

Look, as far as I am concerned, I'd be more glad if the miracle DID happen, but there are geological as well as astronomical problem that make it very unlikely.

Your problems with God are between you and him, hope you resolve it before its too late.


well, it did happen.

[poncho]

Btw. About macroevolution and microevolution and all that: TRAITS evolve, not species. Traits, little building blocks change over a long time and one day the result will cease to resemble the species that had been his ancestor.

And the ability to procreate with another individual is also a trait, so there are in fact no species, there are only traits which we group and call species. Species happen because traits tend to come in packages, but these packages are not immutable or absolute in any way, it's just that traits get transmitted this way.

That's a really smart way of looking at it.  Thumbs up.

[poncho]

uhm, the moon is a light source, ever go outside at night on a full moon?  im not gonna shoot all those down, but trust me i can. in fact i have, here on this forum, if the search still worked, which is missing again. 

Technically, no it's not a source of light.  If it was, the moon would always be full.
It does reflect light hitting it, from the sun (a source of light.)

To say the moon is a source of light means that all visible things are a source of light.  That includes you too!

[Dok]

Technically, no it's not a source of light.  If it was, the moon would always be full.
It does reflect light hitting it, from the sun (a source of light.)

To say the moon is a source of light means that all visible things are a source of light.  That includes you too!

its still a source of light though isnt it.

[Dok]

Update on Joshua's Long Day: The only source from where the webpages derive the account of the Long Day from all around the world (exempt for the chinese one that apparently only mentions Sun having an unusual color) is a book by this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Thats not true. Although Velikovsky did research a lot of it. he is not the "only" source. Wiki, 

[mbacolas]

its still a source of light though isnt it.

it carries the light, but doesnt create it. Hence not the original source

[citizenx]

Actually, Dok, as you well know having studied "quantum mechanics" the light is absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms in the moon.

But, please, everybody feel free to go back to bickering over the age of the earth, and whether AJ has been brainwashed by the Luciferians.

(Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[mbacolas]

its still a source of light though isnt it.

\

 Why can we see the Moon?

The Moon is not a light source, it does not make its own light.

The moon reflects light from the sun.

We can see the Moon because light from the Sun bounces off it back to the Earth.

If the Sun wasn't there, we wouldn't be able to see the Moon.

The Sun always lights up (illuminates) one side of the Moon.

The Moon appears to change shape but what we are actually seeing is the Moon lit up by the light from the Sun in different ways on different days.

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/facts.htm

[Dok]

it carries the light, but doesnt create it. Hence not the original source

yet it is still a source of light,

[Dok]

Actually, Dok, as you well know having studied "quantum mechanics" the light is absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms in the moon.

only when observed,  (Heisenberg)

[Dok]

\

 Why can we see the Moon?

The Moon is not a light source, it does not make its own light.

The moon reflects light from the sun.

We can see the Moon because light from the Sun bounces off it back to the Earth.

If the Sun wasn't there, we wouldn't be able to see the Moon.

The Sun always lights up (illuminates) one side of the Moon.

The Moon appears to change shape but what we are actually seeing is the Moon lit up by the light from the Sun in different ways on different days.

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/facts.htm

its still a light source.  Lets test this theory. Go out into the middle of the desert at night on a new moon, than go out to the same place on a full moon. than tell us what happens. 

[mbacolas]

its still a light source.  Lets test this theory. Go out into the middle of the desert at night on a new moon, than go out to the same place on a full moon. than tell us what happens. 

your such a smart ass but i love it lmao!

right back atcha

source   /sɔrs, soʊrs/  Show Spelled
[sawrs, sohrs]  Show IPA
noun, verb, sourced, sourcing. 
–noun
1. any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin: Which foods are sources of calcium?
2. the beginning or place of origin of a stream or river.
3. a book, statement, person, etc., supplying information.
4. the person or business making interest or dividend payments.
5. a manufacturer or supplier.
6. Archaic . a natural spring or fountain.

[Dok]

your such a smart ass but i love it lmao!

right back atcha

source   /sɔrs, soʊrs/  Show Spelled
[sawrs, sohrs]  Show IPA
noun, verb, sourced, sourcing. 
–noun
1. any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin: Which foods are sources of calcium?
2. the beginning or place of origin of a stream or river.
3. a book, statement, person, etc., supplying information.
4. the person or business making interest or dividend payments.
5. a manufacturer or supplier.
6. Archaic . a natural spring or fountain.

it is still the source for the light at night. The light is coming from the moon.

[mbacolas]

Its going through the moon but from the sun since the sun is the source of the light.

[citizenx]

Well, technically only through the outer layers of an atom on the surface of the moon, but nasically you have it.

[Dok]

Its going through the moon but from the sun since the sun is the source of the light.

its still the source of light at night.

[mbacolas]

Ill agree to disagree

[poncho]

its still a light source.  Lets test this theory. Go out into the middle of the desert at night on a new moon, than go out to the same place on a full moon. than tell us what happens. 

Since you are being a hardcase 

Go out on a night with a new moon.  If you can find it, tell us if it's a source of light

[Femacamper]

wow, im not even gonna bother. Your bible teaches a flat earth, that the earth is the center of the universe and heres a few more bad bible science

Wrong. It teaches that the earth is a sphere. It doesn't, however, teach geo-centricity.

the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);

The Hebrew word used here for the bat is “owph”. This word translates to simply something that owned a wing, and not the bird that we know today. The Hebrews had no concept of a mammal. If anything, it’s the translators that are to blame for this “error”.

Furthermore, if they use the KJV, which they usually do, there’s another huge problem with this argument. When the KJV was composed in 1611, the scientific classification separating bats from birds didn’t even exist yet! It was not until the 20th century that we finally discovered that bats were mammals and not birds.

To wrap this up, this alleged error is nothing more than another failed attempt by the skeptic to find problems with the Bible.

Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);

The Hebrew word for "insects" in the 95NAS, NIV, is the same word that the KJV translates "fowls that creep" and the ASV translates "winged creeping things." Young's Literal Translation translates this word "teeming creature which is flying." I think you can see, this is a difficult Hebrew word to translate. The Hebrew word, according to the lexicon is:

sherets {sheh'-rets}

Which means literally:
1) teeming or swarming things, creepers, swarmers
1a) of insects, animals, small reptiles, quadrupeds

When you go from one language to another (in this case from Hebrew to English) it is often IMPOSSIBLE to find an exact equivalent in translation. Therefore, what the translators TRY to do is find the closest word in English which conveys the meaning. If you look at the original in this case, it does NOT specify "insects" only, although insects are certainly part of the consideration. The word "insect" is PROBABLY (in my humble opinion) NOT the best word which could have been used here. And the reason is because of the problem it presents in conveying a possible "discrepancy." As you properly noted, the whole point was to let the Israelites know what they could eat, and what they could not eat. In Hebrew the words used by God gave them a clear picture of which "flying creatures" (my translation) they could eat. It was not a word which was specifically talking about insects.

Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);

No.

The Hebrew word is question is not specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter does chew "predigested material". The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.

Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);

Please find the following explanation here: http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/cupboard/exam/examsupp/dloads/jud/jew21.htm

There are two things that tell if an animal is kosher. Firstly its hooves are completely parted at the bottom to form two horny pads, and secondly if it chews the cud. Cows, sheep, goats and deer are the common animals that have both these features and so these are kosher. Pigs, whilst they do have split hooves do not chew the cud are so are not kosher, likewise camels while they chew the cud only have partially split hooves and so are also not kosher.

Cow/Sheep Camel Horse

(Split hoof) (Partially split hoof) (Non split hoof)

The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);

Yes, it was.

The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:;

This word in 1 Samuel 2:8 is translated "pillars" in the KJV and "foundations" in the NIV and others. The word in the Hebrew is masuq. It is used only twice in the Bible. Let's look at the way it is translated in each of these Bibles the only other time it is used, in 1 Samuel 14:5:

KJV: "The forefront of the one was situated northward over against Michmash, and the other southward over against Gibeah."

NIV: "One cliff stood to the north toward Mic mash, the other to the south, toward Geba."

The word masuq means "something narrow," which the KJV translators decided would be like a column, or pillar. However the Bible was ahead of the scientific knowledge of that time, for the rocky crust of the earth is indeed narrow. It is also our foundation and we are situated upon it.

The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

It is still exactly where it should be in space -- in the only possible orbit which will sustain life as we have it. It has not been moved out of where it should be. It should be noted that this verse does not say that the earth itself will not move. It will not "be moved" which means forced out of where it should be.

A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);

By taking this one out of context the implication is that the verse says a hare has a hoof. The Bible does not say that. The verse should be read in context. The point is being made that clean animals -- those which can be eaten -- have BOTH a split hoof and chew the cud. The hare, although it does one, does not have the other. Text without context is pretext.

The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);

That verse does not say that, or imply it. If there were any rain before the Flood of Noah, it would have been over the seas and at night. No rainbow would have been seen. Genesis 9:13 refers to God setting the rainbow in the clouds, to be seen in the daytime. This is what was new. Rain over land in the daytime was not something that happened before the Flood. The implication here is of the drastic changes the earth had undergone atmospherically from antediluvian times.

A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);

The mustard seed was the smallest seed used by the farmers in Israel at that time. Under favorable conditions it could grow more than ten feet in height. Context, Context...

Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);

This is made quite clear in all Concordances -- the reference is to the turtle dove. The word "dove" is used in the modern translations. The word is the exact same word used for turtle doves in all other passages. Who knows why the KJV translators chose only the "turtle" part?

The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);

This is an idiom we still use today, and it is used the same way in Job. "The ends of the earth" has a meaning that has come down through the languages and cultures and should not cause any thinking person a problem.

The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

Even our weathermen today agree with this! They are either north, east, south, and west, or, alternatively, north-east, north-west, south-west, and south-east. Again, the Bible uses the same idioms we do today and, again, no thinking person will find this difficult to understand.

Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);

This is present in the King James Version, otherwise known as the Authorized Version. Somewhere in the versions that had come down and from which the KJV was translated, there was an apparent change of words here. The word in this verse, which is translated by the KJV as "fowl" is owph, or op. While the normal translation for this is "bird" or "fowl," it can also be translated as "winged" or "winged creature." In the meantime, the modern translations have had the advantage of access to much older manuscripts than the KJV translators had. These older texts did not have the word owph in this passage, but instead, had the word seres, which is a rather generic word for "creatures," and is interpreted according to context. Thus, the most precise translation of that verse might be "All flying creatures that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you..." In this context, "insects" is the obvious translation, especially as the following verses, defining what is meant, are referring specifically to insects. It also may refer to dragons, potentially...

The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

The time frame for the changing of the languages is not given in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible. The fact was that the languages were confused, branching off from the one original language. This might have happened miraculously in the space of moments or it might have taken some time after the Babel catastrophe drove people from the area. Again, the timing is not indicated here.

A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

That is not what this verse says. This sort of comment is, however, typical of those who try to "prove" the Bible wrong. The passage states that when the baby inside Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary's voice, he jumped or leaped "for joy." The first thing that should be noted here is that there is no doubt about babies in utero being able to hear outside sounds. The second thing that should be noted is that this takes place during the miraculous happening of Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. That a baby in utero should react to the presence of the Lord is no more strange than any other person reacting to Him. Even those who deny Him are reacting quite strongly to Him.

The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16)

As discussed previously in another post...the moon provides us a source of light at night which the sun cannot, directly.

Redebunked.

[KI4BNC]

bats aren't birds?

[citizenx]

Stay tunes for next week, kiddies when they'll be more "Teaching Bad Science through the Bible".

"The bat is a bird" -- so that is just a mistranslation?  Then just the KJV is fu#%ed up?

Or is that something for another thread?

[Seraphim]

*Sigh* I really can't leave well enough alone. ^_^ (BTW- Fema, I'm agreeing with you, I'm just too lazy at this hour to go and find the original post to reply)

When you go from one language to another (in this case from Hebrew to English) it is often IMPOSSIBLE to find an exact equivalent in translation.

Quoted for truth. Even with two "sister" languages, such as English and German, there isn't that many direct one-to-one word translations, especially with verbs. There is no directly translated word for "down" in German, it's "nach unten", which literally means something akin to "after under", and contextually means something akin to "facing under (in that direction relative to where I am now), toward-going under (actually going downward), and near under (being down there as opposed to up here)"; and "of" and "auf", while basically meaning the same thing (relating the status that belongs to the object in the sentence), they are used in completely different ways...

Consider "Ich fahre auf die Rolltreppe nach unten."  (which literally means, I travel-by-land-vehicle by-reason-of-being-upon-the-flat-thing the-female rolling-stairs going-toward under)... as absolutely convoluted as that transliterated sentence is, it is easy enough to get the same general meaning as "I'm going down the escalator", but it loses a *lot* of real meaning in the process of merely translating it...

And the farther one goes from a root language, the less direct similarities you have. Consider Japanese... There's one word that exists in Japanese without even a vague English equivalent: "ka". I'm not even exactly sure what "ka" translates to, other than "the question mark word"... how can one actually transliterate a word that means "a word that, if used after the word that loosely means 'is', will state that this statement is a question"? ...It doesn't work, we don't have a word that means anything like it (and it was hard enough trying to think of a sentence that'd define it properly): at best, we have "right?", but that only checks for a yes or no, not an actual answer... In reverse perspective, the Japanese language has just as hard of a time trying to define the English word "you" when written without status, relationship, gender, age, and amount context.

To make it worse, what little I know of Hebrew and Greek are just as convoluted toward English as Japanese is. It really seems not to be a matter of "what they know or don't know", but rather, how their languages work... and honestly, it's not the other languages that are the problem, it's English that is the inane and illogical language. We use an awkward word order compared to most of the rest of the world, our spelling is based on memorization of rules as opposed to phonics, our definitions of words are usually unrelated to their root words... English is an absolute train wreck as far as languages go, and American English is even worse, to be honest.

That verse does not say that, or imply it. If there were any rain before the Flood of Noah, it would have been over the seas and at night. No rainbow would have been seen. Genesis 9:13 refers to God setting the rainbow in the clouds, to be seen in the daytime. This is what was new. Rain over land in the daytime was not something that happened before the Flood. The implication here is of the drastic changes the earth had undergone atmospherically from antediluvian times.

I always considered it as the act of seeing the rainbow became a reminder of the covenant, not the existence of the rainbow itself was the covenant itself, but whatever, same difference. ^_^

This is made quite clear in all Concordances -- the reference is to the turtle dove. The word "dove" is used in the modern translations. The word is the exact same word used for turtle doves in all other passages. Who knows why the KJV translators chose only the "turtle" part?

I hate to disagree, but I have once heard a tortoise say, "Wow". Actually, it was several times in that video (Youtube "Turtle says wow"... NSFW or innocent eyes). Even so, same difference. I just *had* to throw that in there. ^_^

The time frame for the changing of the languages is not given in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible.

IMHO, languages can and do 'spawn' essentially "overnight". It took Tolkien only a matter of a handful of years to develop the languages used in Lord of the Rings, took maybe a decade or so for Klingon and Esperanto, and the whole of about 20 years for hacker jargon, Old Leetspeak, 13375p33k, gamer jargon, txtspk, and lolspeak, to emerge from a single international group of maybe a few thousand people at very most (and I would be more willing to bet only in the hundreds), most of whom never met.

[citizenx]

So, the "Holy Spirit" is only the "bulwark of the truth" in Hebrew -- not English.

Interesting.

[Seraphim]

So, the "Holy Spirit" is only the "bulwark of the truth" in Hebrew -- not English.

Interesting.

Well, consider it this way, what is a bulwark, in English? A shield, an outer defense, a fort, a protective fence. The word itself is more than just a "castle wall"... it could be likened to "the first line of defense, as well as the last line of defense". And, what is truth? It is the correct way, righteousness, without fault, infallible, precise... it is "perfection". What, then, is the "bulwark of the truth"? The perfect barrier that keeps truth intact, and that truth itself perfectly protecting those who bear it.

Sure, "bulwark of the truth" sums it up pretty well, but there is a lot of emotional power of the words that are missed at first glance, and even moreso that are lost in translation... English, unfortunately, is not a very descriptive language.

[citizenx]

Tell that to Shakespeare.

[Dok]

Since you are being a hardcase 

Go out on a night with a new moon.  If you can find it, tell us if it's a source of light

yet when its out, its a source of light.

[Dok]

bats aren't birds?

only by our classification of the animals today.

[Dok]

Stay tunes for next week, kiddies when they'll be more "Teaching Bad Science through the Bible".

"The bat is a bird" -- so that is just a mistranslation?  Then just the KJV is fu#%ed up?

Or is that something for another thread?

its only not a bird by our modern classification. As Fema has already pointed out, in Hebrew the word for bird meant anything with a wing. In the 1600's the word "bird" in English meant- chicken or the young of any fowl, or any flying animal.

So in actuality, the use of the word, as used at the times, is correct.

[rosswell]

I hold old earth creationism. Here is an excellent document addressing the issue:

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/kelly/7subjcts/beginnng.html

[Femacamper]

Tell that to Shakespeare.

Shakespeare wrote in English, not Hebrew and Greek. Translation is a bitch, especially when traversing time gaps and cultural gaps in addition to wide semantic differences.