Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 245

Thread: Location: Garden of Eden

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,286

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Bad translation and not the same words used in the genesis account. Here's the KJV translation of that passage and the NASB:

    KJV 6 For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwelling places that are not theirs.

    NASB 6 "For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
    That fierce and impetuous people
    Who march throughout the earth
    To seize dwelling places which are not theirs.

    The word translated earth/land in Habakkuk is dealing exclusively in the context of Israel and their promised land given all the promises about the land and being scattered. Thus, context makes it more clear it is talking about the land/earth of Israel.

    Here's the hebrew word that the NIV translates "whole"

    OT:4800 merchab (mer-khawb'); from OT:7337; enlargement, either literally (an open space, usually in a good sense), or figuratively (liberty):

    It's not even used in the book of Genesis.

    Here's the word translated "earth" or "land".

    OT:776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):

    It can mean both at large (i.e. the whole earth) or a piece of land. And it is used throughout genesis. How can we know which one it is? Context. The word is often used to speak of the promised land. It is used in Exodus, Genesis, the law and the prophets, etc.

    Habakkuk is speaking specifically of Israel being raided and scattered from their entire promised land just as God promised He would do in their law.




    This is a much, much better example than Habakkuk. But it seems to me the viewpoint is actually from Nebechadnezzer and not from the Lord God's viewpoint. He was giving his testimony of how God had humbled him.

    The context is the king describing his position first, in order to exalt God later.

    4:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.
    2 I thought it good to shew the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me.
    3 How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.



    In my view, this is the absolute best example you gave. And I agree, it is hyperbole. I think context tells us that.

    How does the context in Gen 6 suggest it is hyperbole? Where can we see that?

    Part of the prolblem is that when something is written from man's viewpoint, we know that man's viewpoint is limited. But when scripture speaks for God from His viewpoint, don't you think we should take note of that as being intrinsically different from when scripture speaks from man's viewpoint?
    In post #49 I provided some examples from Ramm, showing that the Scriptures regularly use seemingly all-encompassing statements in a more narrow way. That's just the way language works. Here, I'll quote it again, though this has to do with his argument for a Local Flood:

    From "The Christian View of Science and Scripture" by Bernard Ramm, 1954:

    "Although many Christians still believe in the universal flood, most of the recent conservative scholarship of the church defends a local flood. Those who defend a local flood believe that the time of the flood was some time prior to 4000 B.C. The waters were supplied by the rains from above and the ocean waters beneath. Some sort of geological phenomenon is indicated by the expression "and the fountains of the deep were broken." This caused the ocean waters to creep up the Mesopotamian valley. The waters carried the ark up to the Ararat range. The Hebrew text does not mean that the ark was deposited on the 17,000 foot summit of the peak, but that the ark rested somewhere on the Ararat range."

    This is a particularly good section from Ramm:

    "Much of the weight of evidence for the local flood consists in showing the imponderable difficulties of a universal flood. Before we critically examine the universal flood interpretation two things must be said:
    (i) It is not a question as to what God can or cannot do. Those who believe in a local flood believe in the omnipotence and power of God as much as any other Christian does. The question is not: "What can God do?" but, "What did God do?" (ii) The problem is one of interpretation, not inspiration. Those who believe in the local flood believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible; otherwise they would believe in no flood. It is improper to affirm that only those who believe in a universal flood really believe in the inspiration of Scripture and the omnipotence of God. It is also improper to imply that those who believe in a local flood do not believe in the omnipotence of God and believe in the peccability of Scripture.
    (a) First of all, in criticism of the universal flood interpretation, this theory cannot demonstrate three of its most necessary propositions.
    (i) It cannot demonstrate that totality of language necessitates a universal flood. Fifteen minutes with a Bible concordance will reveal many instances in which universality of language is used but only a partial quantity is meant. All does not mean every last one in all of its usages. Psa. 22:17 reads: "I may tell all my bones," and hardly means that every single bone of the skeleton stood out prominently. John 4:39 cannot mean that Jesus completely recited the woman's biography. Matt. 3:5 cannot mean that every single individual from Judea and Jordan came to John the Baptist. There are cases where all means all, and every means every, but the context tells us where this is intended. Thus, special reference may be made to Paul's statement in Romans about the universality of sin, yet even that all excludes Jesus Christ. The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the experience of the man who reported it..."

    Ramm continues:

    "When God tells the Israelites He will put the fear of them upon the people under the whole heaven, it refers to all the peoples known to the Israelites (Deut. 2:25). When Gen. 41:57 states that all countries came to Egypt to buy grain, it can only mean all peoples known to the Egyptians. Ahab certainly did not look for Elijah in every country of the earth even though the text says he looked for Elijah so thoroughly that he skipped no nation or kingdom (1 Kings 18:10). From the vantage point of the observer of the flood all mountains were covered, and all flesh died. We must concur that:

    'The language of the sacred historian by no means necessarily implies that the flood overspread the whole earth. Universal terms are frequently used in a partial and restricted sense in Scripture.' 90

    "The ark had a draught of about 15 cubits (Gen. 7:20) and so the writer inferred that the water rose that high above the mountains because the ark did not ground on any of them. The highest mountain in the region was Ararat at about 17,000 feet; the Himalayan range rises to 29,000 feet. Do those who defend a universal flood wish to assert that the waters mounted to a depth of six miles?...

    "(iii) There is no known geological data to support those who defend a universal flood...
    (b) The problems in connection with a universal flood are enormous. We can but summarize here the lengthy refutations found in commentaries and Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias. One point must be clearly understood before we commence these criticisms: the flood is recorded as a natural-supernatural occurrence. It does not appear as a pure and stupendous miracle. The natural and the supernatural work side by side and hand in hand. If one wishes to retain a universal flood, it must be understood that a series of stupendous miracles is required. Further, one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything. We concur enthusiastically with Smith when he wrote:

    'That the Omnipotent could effect such a work [a universal flood], none can doubt; but we are not at liberty thus to invent miracles, and the narrative in the Book of Genesis plainly assigns two natural causes for the production of the diluvial waters.'

    "(I) There is the problem of the amount of water required by the universal flood... To cover the highest mountains would require eight times more water than we now have. It would have involved a great creation of water to have covered the entire globe, but no such creative act is hinted at in the Scriptures."

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,520

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    I'm going to have to reread that above Randy, but from what I read it's very reasonable. I have few things I might quibble on but his tine is very good.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    In post #49 I provided some examples from Ramm, showing that the Scriptures regularly use seemingly all-encompassing statements in a more narrow way. That's just the way language works. Here, I'll quote it again, though this has to do with his argument for a Local Flood:

    From "The Christian View of Science and Scripture" by Bernard Ramm, 1954:

    "Although many Christians still believe in the universal flood, most of the recent conservative scholarship of the church defends a local flood. Those who defend a local flood believe that the time of the flood was some time prior to 4000 B.C. The waters were supplied by the rains from above and the ocean waters beneath. Some sort of geological phenomenon is indicated by the expression "and the fountains of the deep were broken." This caused the ocean waters to creep up the Mesopotamian valley. The waters carried the ark up to the Ararat range. The Hebrew text does not mean that the ark was deposited on the 17,000 foot summit of the peak, but that the ark rested somewhere on the Ararat range."

    This is a particularly good section from Ramm:

    "Much of the weight of evidence for the local flood consists in showing the imponderable difficulties of a universal flood. Before we critically examine the universal flood interpretation two things must be said:
    (i) It is not a question as to what God can or cannot do. Those who believe in a local flood believe in the omnipotence and power of God as much as any other Christian does. The question is not: "What can God do?" but, "What did God do?" (ii) The problem is one of interpretation, not inspiration. Those who believe in the local flood believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible; otherwise they would believe in no flood. It is improper to affirm that only those who believe in a universal flood really believe in the inspiration of Scripture and the omnipotence of God. It is also improper to imply that those who believe in a local flood do not believe in the omnipotence of God and believe in the peccability of Scripture.
    (a) First of all, in criticism of the universal flood interpretation, this theory cannot demonstrate three of its most necessary propositions.
    (i) It cannot demonstrate that totality of language necessitates a universal flood. Fifteen minutes with a Bible concordance will reveal many instances in which universality of language is used but only a partial quantity is meant. All does not mean every last one in all of its usages. Psa. 22:17 reads: "I may tell all my bones," and hardly means that every single bone of the skeleton stood out prominently. John 4:39 cannot mean that Jesus completely recited the woman's biography. Matt. 3:5 cannot mean that every single individual from Judea and Jordan came to John the Baptist. There are cases where all means all, and every means every, but the context tells us where this is intended. Thus, special reference may be made to Paul's statement in Romans about the universality of sin, yet even that all excludes Jesus Christ. The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the experience of the man who reported it..."

    Ramm continues:

    "When God tells the Israelites He will put the fear of them upon the people under the whole heaven, it refers to all the peoples known to the Israelites (Deut. 2:25). When Gen. 41:57 states that all countries came to Egypt to buy grain, it can only mean all peoples known to the Egyptians. Ahab certainly did not look for Elijah in every country of the earth even though the text says he looked for Elijah so thoroughly that he skipped no nation or kingdom (1 Kings 18:10). From the vantage point of the observer of the flood all mountains were covered, and all flesh died. We must concur that:

    'The language of the sacred historian by no means necessarily implies that the flood overspread the whole earth. Universal terms are frequently used in a partial and restricted sense in Scripture.' 90

    "The ark had a draught of about 15 cubits (Gen. 7:20) and so the writer inferred that the water rose that high above the mountains because the ark did not ground on any of them. The highest mountain in the region was Ararat at about 17,000 feet; the Himalayan range rises to 29,000 feet. Do those who defend a universal flood wish to assert that the waters mounted to a depth of six miles?...

    "(iii) There is no known geological data to support those who defend a universal flood...
    (b) The problems in connection with a universal flood are enormous. We can but summarize here the lengthy refutations found in commentaries and Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias. One point must be clearly understood before we commence these criticisms: the flood is recorded as a natural-supernatural occurrence. It does not appear as a pure and stupendous miracle. The natural and the supernatural work side by side and hand in hand. If one wishes to retain a universal flood, it must be understood that a series of stupendous miracles is required. Further, one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything. We concur enthusiastically with Smith when he wrote:

    'That the Omnipotent could effect such a work [a universal flood], none can doubt; but we are not at liberty thus to invent miracles, and the narrative in the Book of Genesis plainly assigns two natural causes for the production of the diluvial waters.'

    "(I) There is the problem of the amount of water required by the universal flood... To cover the highest mountains would require eight times more water than we now have. It would have involved a great creation of water to have covered the entire globe, but no such creative act is hinted at in the Scriptures."
    If the world was flatter before that great death event, we wouldn't need all that water. And geology proves that the world was actually flatter then, before the Great Death of the Permian Triassic boundary.

    Literalists would obviously believe in both shorter time frames of those fossil records, and also a universal flood. They go together.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,286

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    I'm going to have to reread that above Randy, but from what I read it's very reasonable. I have few things I might quibble on but his tine is very good.
    Thanks for giving Ramm consideration. This book was written in the 50s, but I read it maybe 30 years ago. And it was the thing that convinced me that Noah's Flood was enormous, but local.

    However, my point here is as has been already stated, that universal-type language depends on context as to *how universal* it is intended to apply. If I said "all the furniture was destroyed in the fire," it really matters if we're talking about a house, a furniture store, or the entire world!

    Thanks again!

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,286

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    If the world was flatter before that great death event, we wouldn't need all that water. And geology proves that the world was actually flatter then, before the Great Death of the Permian Triassic boundary.

    Literalists would obviously believe in both shorter time frames of those fossil records, and also a universal flood. They go together.
    Well most people, who believe in the Bible, think the Flood likely happened somewhere around 5000 BC--not 250 million years ago. The world was *not* likely flat even then. Continental drift is *always* going to create irregular topography.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Well most people, who believe in the Bible, think the Flood likely happened somewhere around 5000 BC--not 250 million years ago. The world was *not* likely flat even then. Continental drift is *always* going to create irregular topography.
    Sure mountain ranges come and go, but there were very few mountain ranges at first.
    No-one knows how high the Appalachians were at the end-Permian.... Because the mountain tops were all eroded away then, and have more recently uplifted again.

    Other than the Appalachians, was there any other mountain range of any significance? I haven't heard of any, all the current most significant mountain ranges on each continent formed after the Permian-Triassic boundary. The ancestral Rocky Mountain range was much smaller in extent, and had largely eroded by the end-Permian. The Himalayas and Andes formed long after the Permian-Triassic boundary.


    From the scientific perspective of known geology, I fail to see any significant mountain range at the end Permian. Current volumes of water can cover the planet by 2.5 km, and there doesn't appear to be any convincing evidence that any mountains were even 2km high back then at the end Permian.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,286

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Sure mountain ranges come and go, but there were very few mountain ranges at first.
    No-one knows how high the Appalachians were at the end-Permian.... Because the mountain tops were all eroded away then, and have more recently uplifted again.

    Other than the Appalachians, was there any other mountain range of any significance? I haven't heard of any, all the current most significant mountain ranges on each continent formed after the Permian-Triassic boundary. The ancestral Rocky Mountain range was much smaller in extent, and had largely eroded by the end-Permian. The Himalayas and Andes formed long after the Permian-Triassic boundary?

    There's lots more problems with a universal Flood, however. Covering the mountains with 8 x the water we have now on earth is just the start. It would utterly destroy the habitat necessary to sustain all the kinds of life we have now.


    From the scientific perspective of known geology, I fail to see any significant mountain range at the end Permian. Current volumes of water can cover the planet by 2.5 km, and there doesn't appear to be any convincing evidence that any mountains were even 2km high back then at the end Permian.
    My point was that with Continental Drift happening *continuously* throughout geological history, there was *always* a rough relief. There were always mountains. Do you really believe that the earth just went *flat* around the time of Noah?

    But Noah didn't live 250 million years ago, did he? So what does Noah's Flood have to do with the Permian/Triassic boundary?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    My point was that with Continental Drift happening *continuously* throughout geological history, there was *always* a rough relief. There were always mountains. Do you really believe that the earth just went *flat* around the time of Noah?

    But Noah didn't live 250 million years ago, did he? So what does Noah's Flood have to do with the Permian/Triassic boundary?
    The alleged dates have little value nowadays. I already dealt with radiometric dating in this thread, revealing that there needs to be a lot more research now that they have found that decay rates are not a constant. So the dates are irrelevant, there have been insufficient studies on the effect found at Purdue university in 2010.

    Also I prefer the Bible time frames to science, the Bible placing creation week and the creation of biological life within the last 6500 years, so the fossils at the Permian-Triassic boundary are within that 6500 year timeframe.

    I have already acknowledged some mountain ranges during the late Permian, but these weren't as high and had been subjected to erosion at that time according to geology. So the world was not completely flat, I am not claiming it was flat. But it was certainly flatter than at present. The main ocean trenches also hadn't opened up yet then, so there actually is enough water for a biblical flood.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,520

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The alleged dates have little value nowadays. I already dealt with radiometric dating in this thread, revealing that there needs to be a lot more research now that they have found that decay rates are not a constant. So the dates are irrelevant, there have been insufficient studies on the effect found at Purdue university in 2010.
    Because there is one study that suggests some variation does not mean you can broadly apply that to everything in the universe. As you say there may be other studies to be done. But jettisoning the current framework over one study is not scientific, nor reasonable.

    Oh look...
    Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable (Again) from the same year.

    Also I prefer the Bible time frames to science, the Bible placing creation week and the creation of biological life within the last 6500 years, so the fossils at the Permian-Triassic boundary are within that 6500 year timeframe.

    I have already acknowledged some mountain ranges during the late Permian, but these weren't as high and had been subjected to erosion at that time according to geology. So the world was not completely flat, I am not claiming it was flat. But it was certainly flatter than at present. The main ocean trenches also hadn't opened up yet then, so there actually is enough water for a biblical flood.
    I'm not sure how well we can infer the heights of the mountain ranges heights pre-Permian. The wiki article on Pangaea has a generalized cross-section that shows collision of an island arc and proto-Africa with North America. Modern island arcs examples include Japan and New Zealand. These features have some pretty significant mountain ranges.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,520

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Thanks for giving Ramm consideration. This book was written in the 50s, but I read it maybe 30 years ago. And it was the thing that convinced me that Noah's Flood was enormous, but local.

    However, my point here is as has been already stated, that universal-type language depends on context as to *how universal* it is intended to apply. If I said "all the furniture was destroyed in the fire," it really matters if we're talking about a house, a furniture store, or the entire world!

    Thanks again!
    I should have written 'tone' not 'tine' in that last post. As I said, I would quibble with the some assumptions there (e.g. fountains of the deep being a geological phenomenon), but I really like his statement that all Christians do accept that God was the agent behind it and that we all believe the Bible is inspired, just that interpretation is where we may differ.

    Coming from somewhere back in the 1950's is interesting but understandable, as I think that would predate the rise of YEC fundamentalism currently espoused by AiG and ICR, among others. Until that time it was the SDA that strongly held to the YEC position.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    Because there is one study that suggests some variation does not mean you can broadly apply that to everything in the universe. As you say there may be other studies to be done. But jettisoning the current framework over one study is not scientific, nor reasonable.

    Oh look...
    Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable (Again) from the same year.

    I'm not sure how well we can infer the heights of the mountain ranges heights pre-Permian. The wiki article on Pangaea has a generalized cross-section that shows collision of an island arc and proto-Africa with North America. Modern island arcs examples include Japan and New Zealand. These features have some pretty significant mountain ranges.
    That article was saying they hypothesized the effect was caused by neutrinos, then disproved their own hypothesis. In the end they still don't know what is causing the fluctuations, but it certainly is not neutrinos.

    I suspect the cause is simply fluctuations in muons, the main cause of background radiation on the surface of earth. If they don't know what causes the effect, it's not a good reason to dismiss the effect.

    Now regarding mountain ranges, the proven high ranges of today were not there at the end Permian. Are there any proven mountain ranges above 2km in height at the end Permian?

    If not, then one cannot conclusively use the argument that there's not enough water for a global flood.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,520

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Now regarding mountain ranges, the proven high ranges of today were not there at the end Permian. Are there any proven mountain ranges above 2km in height at the end Permian?
    I can't think of any way to actually prove or disprove the height of the ranges from pre-Permian times. If tectonics were comparable then, and there is little reason to think otherwise, then we can certainly infer that the mountains built at collision boundaries were pretty similar. That does not answer the question, I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    If not, then one cannot conclusively use the argument that there's not enough water for a global flood.
    I think earlier you said that there was water currently to put the surface under 2.5km? Where did you get that from? I looked up something which said that the icecaps and mountain glacier water would raise the sea level some 70 metres if totally melted. There is water locked up in the crust and mantle, but that is not readily available to come to surface.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  13. #73
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,520

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Further to the mountain ranges, the ancient Blue Ridge Mountains of the Appalachians are up to about 2km above sea level currently (Mt. Mitchell). The Black Hills of South Dakota are even older, also contain peaks up to 7000 feet (2133m). The latter's age surprised me because I was under the impression they were created as part of the western basin-and-range province of the western US.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,286

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    I should have written 'tone' not 'tine' in that last post. As I said, I would quibble with the some assumptions there (e.g. fountains of the deep being a geological phenomenon), but I really like his statement that all Christians do accept that God was the agent behind it and that we all believe the Bible is inspired, just that interpretation is where we may differ.

    Coming from somewhere back in the 1950's is interesting but understandable, as I think that would predate the rise of YEC fundamentalism currently espoused by AiG and ICR, among others. Until that time it was the SDA that strongly held to the YEC position.
    I'm not really familiar with AiG, but yes, Ramm dealt with Price of the SDA a lot, as I recall. My interest now is directed more towards those speaking out of the Discovery Institute on Inteliigent Design.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,286

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The alleged dates have little value nowadays. I already dealt with radiometric dating in this thread, revealing that there needs to be a lot more research now that they have found that decay rates are not a constant. So the dates are irrelevant, there have been insufficient studies on the effect found at Purdue university in 2010.

    Also I prefer the Bible time frames to science, the Bible placing creation week and the creation of biological life within the last 6500 years, so the fossils at the Permian-Triassic boundary are within that 6500 year timeframe.

    I have already acknowledged some mountain ranges during the late Permian, but these weren't as high and had been subjected to erosion at that time according to geology. So the world was not completely flat, I am not claiming it was flat. But it was certainly flatter than at present. The main ocean trenches also hadn't opened up yet then, so there actually is enough water for a biblical flood.
    You've just thrown out all scientific evidence as "unreliable" because you believe the Bible indicates a "Young Earth." If we deny science, we can make anything work. That's not the way I wish to do things. It does not "witness" to anybody. Blind Faith is not what convinces the world of a Creator.

    Do you really think that radiometric dating has been invalidated, due to the evidence that cosmic rays can have some effect on the results? I should think that the more likely thought is that ages may be skewed somewhat, but not as evidence of a Young Earth? Regardless, I'm not the best one to argue for an advanced age for the Earth. There are plenty of resources available.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Location of Eden?
    By trance750 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Jan 22nd 2016, 10:05 PM
  2. Garden of Eden found ?
    By Protective Angel in forum Breaking News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Aug 3rd 2013, 05:27 PM
  3. The Garden of Eden
    By buster in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Apr 6th 2012, 05:55 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •