How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (8 Viewers)

[dkp993]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

Thanks D. I fully understand this, I guess I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. My question was more directed to literalist like Paddington.

 

[dgreen]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

Thanks D. I fully understand this, I guess I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. My question was more directed to literalist like Paddington.

Got it. I thought you were saying that you think the Bible makes that claim.

 

[Paddington]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

 

[dkp993]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

 

[Captain Cranks]

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

Are you aware that the dominant conclusion among Biblical scholars including those within the faith are that Adam and Eve are mythical characters?

 

[dgreen]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

My understanding of what you're implying here is a standard that nobody, including yourself, holds every verse of the Bible to. I'm sure you'll agree that the Bible has more than one genre. Not every word of the Bible is intended to be read as historical narrative. You'd agree that much of the Psalms and prophetic language use metaphor and imagery that aren't meant to be read in a literal historical way. Or, do you think the Lord literally made David lie down in green pastures?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

The point of the scriptures which now make up the Old Testament is to "Do unto others...". As said 2000+ years ago, everything else is commentary. The point of the New Testament is to "Love thy neighbor". Those are the consistent theme throughout the Bible. This is the point.

For those saying "Wait, what about Christ?" see 1 John.

 

[dgreen]

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

Are you aware that the dominant conclusion among Biblical scholars including those within the faith are that Adam and Eve are mythical characters?

True, but "myth" can hold a different meaning in academic circles. Those cultures told their history through myths. The Hebrew people told a deeply meaningful story in a mythical way about who they saw as the first significant people in their lineage and how they came to be the people they were. Where' I am at currently, I see the Adam and Eve characters as representations of two people in the history of the Hebrew people.

 

[Captain Cranks]

True, but "myth" can hold a different meaning in academic circles. Those cultures told their history through myths. The Hebrew people told a deeply meaningful story in a mythical way about who they saw as the first significant people in their lineage and how they came to be the people they were. Where' I am at currently, I see the Adam and Eve characters as representations of two people in the history of the Hebrew people.

What are your thoughts on Adam and Eve having significant similarities to other ancient creation myths?

 

[dgreen]

True, but "myth" can hold a different meaning in academic circles. Those cultures told their history through myths. The Hebrew people told a deeply meaningful story in a mythical way about who they saw as the first significant people in their lineage and how they came to be the people they were. Where' I am at currently, I see the Adam and Eve characters as representations of two people in the history of the Hebrew people.

What are your thoughts on Adam and Eve having significant similarities to other ancient creation myths?

On the surface, I don't see that as problematic. One option is that the Biblical authors are engaging in polemics, arguing against these other myths with what they think is the true (not necessarily historically accurate truth, but true in its deeper meaning) representation of who God is and why the world is the way it is. Another option can just be that they all swim in the same "cultural river", meaning they aren't necessarily interacting with these other myths but they are telling the story in a similar way because that's just how those people operate. I recently read the quote "divine revelation is analogous to human communication." To me, there's no way around the Biblical text fitting in with the time and culture in which it was written. That "human communication" has to be their communication of the time so it makes sense for it to be similar to other human communication of the time, whether that's because it is polemical, swimming in the same cultural river, or even borrowing/stealing from other myths.

 

[Paddington]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

 

[dkp993]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

Thank you for answering.

My guess, based on your answers, is we don’t have a ton of common ground to discuss on this as we are, for all intents and purposes, speaking different languages.

All the best to you though.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I have become much more comfortable admitting I don't know and asking questions rather than rushing to answers. On many things, I don't feel the need to have an opinion. And, strangely, as my doubts have increased over the years, I feel my faith has strengthened.

The bolded is precisely why religion isn’t important to me. I’m very comfortable not understanding why I’m here, or where I may go.

to explain our existence and purpose

That's a question everyone has to decide at some point. I actually believe every human who has the mental capacity has pondered it.

Not really. Random chance, without greater meaning suits me just fine.

 

[Paddington]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

Thank you for answering.

My guess, based on your answers, is we don’t have a ton of common ground to discuss on this as we are, for all intents and purposes, speaking different languages.

All the best to you though.

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

There used to be numerous religion related threads around here. There was for three years a "believers vs non-believers" fantasy football league here. Many, many creation vs evolution discussions. The default position posting here should be that everyone has read the answers in genesis apologetics. The poster that you provided a link earlier in this thread mentioned "apologetics". While I don't know for certain that he has read it, or read it recently I'm pretty certain he is at least aware of the arguments.

I fall in the not recently camp, but once upon a time that page you posted would have said that "we have all of the same evidence, same facts" that the "Darwinism" group has plus the truth to understand them. (Paraphrasing of course.) Speaking only for myself the answer in genesis people have all of these puzzle pieces that they jam into the finished picture they want, whether they truly fit or not, whether they are missing pieces or not, whether they end up with extra pieces. Their approximately 5500 BC date of creation (if you read the early Greek manuscripts) or 4000 BC (from the later accepted Jewish versions) may very well be correct as far as what happened, but their methodologies to argue this is entirely unconvincing and often ridiculous.

Christians would be better served in my opinion if they just admit to themselves, to lean into the idea that they (we) believe in crazy stuff. And stop trying to pretend that it is supposed to make sense logically, scientifically, etc. Whether it is 100% factual or 100% metaphor (or equivalent) shouldn't make a difference to whether or not it is true.

You stated that the point of this thread is how to get to heaven. Isn't that solidly covered by Jesus in Luke 10 :25 (give or take) to the end? Doesn't Paul simplify that in Romans 13:10 and Galatians 5:14? And 1 John 3 and 4 explain where Christ fits in? Where salvation fits in? What does the age of the universe add to that?

 

[dkp993]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

Thank you for answering.

My guess, based on your answers, is we don’t have a ton of common ground to discuss on this as we are, for all intents and purposes, speaking different languages.

All the best to you though.

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

Well, there’s a couple of reasons…..

The first, and the reason I asked you the questions, was to see if you had a unique, or different then I’ve heard previously, viewpoint on this. You don’t.

Secondly, I don’t want to get into a discussion of trying to litigate your points (or mine). I have no desire to try to change your mind and feel confident in my position based on the arguments you linked. I’m more than happy to let everyone believe what they wanna believe.

I appreciate your willingness to engage though, as fruitless as that discussion would be, and appreciate your beliefs, even if I disagree with them.

Thanks.

 

[Scoresman]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

Thank you for answering.

My guess, based on your answers, is we don’t have a ton of common ground to discuss on this as we are, for all intents and purposes, speaking different languages.

All the best to you though.

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

Because there is this thing called actual science that has demonstrated that there is no possible way the earth can be 6,000 years old. We can give you countless links but it is information that is very easy to find. Have you ever looked at this science?

 

[belljr]

Are all extremely religious people passive aggressive?

 

[BlackCrowes]

is this larryboy?

 

[BlackCrowes]

1. A number of years ago, Peter W. Stoner and Robert C. Newman wrote a book entitled Science Speaks. The book was based on the science of probability and vouched for by the American Scientific Affiliation. It set out the odds of any one man in all of history fulfilling even only eight of the 60 major prophecies (and 270 ramifications) fulfilled by the life of Christ.
   The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017. That's 1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
   
   How much is that?
   
   If you were to cover the entire state of texas with two feet deep of silver dollars, and asked a blind man to find the one silver dollar painted red, the odds would be:
   
   1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000?

no way. a book was "vouched for" by an organization that was co-founded by its author? sounds a little like another book.

The American Scientific Affiliation is a Christian religious organization of scientists and people in science-related disciplines (wiki)

 

[Captain Cranks]

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

That site is filled with political propaganda.

 

[dkp993]

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

That site is filled with political propaganda.

It was a painful link to swim around in for a while. Felt very spammy.

 

[dgreen]

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

That site is filled with political propaganda.

Those are very sincerely held religious beliefs. I suppose it could be that and political propaganda, but I’m not sure politics is at the top of their priority. They think anyone interpreting the Bible differently is denying the word of God. In fact, they tend to not even like the word “interpret”. I know people who say, “I’m not interpreting the Bible, I’m just telling you what it says. While they do all tend to be in the same political tribe, I’ve never seen this as a largely political thing.

 

[BlackCrowes]

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

That site is filled with political propaganda.

It was a painful link to swim around in for a while. Felt very spammy.

Evolution for Dummies, by Ken Ham

 

[-fish-]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

Wait, you accept DNA evidence as reliable, yet argue that it supports a 6,000 year old earth? This is new to me. Please reconcile the two, given the fact that modern European and Asian human DNA contains a percentage of Neanderthal DNA. Hint: they picked it up about 47,000 years ago.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Those are very sincerely held religious beliefs. I suppose it could be that and political propaganda, but I’m not sure politics is at the top of their priority. They think anyone interpreting the Bible differently is denying the word of God. In fact, they tend to not even like the word “interpret”. I know people who say, “I’m not interpreting the Bible, I’m just telling you what it says. While they do all tend to be in the same political tribe, I’ve never seen this as a largely political thing.

I was just speaking to videos like this on the site: linky

 

[Paddington]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

Thank you for answering.

My guess, based on your answers, is we don’t have a ton of common ground to discuss on this as we are, for all intents and purposes, speaking different languages.

All the best to you though.

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

Because there is this thing called actual science that has demonstrated that there is no possible way the earth can be 6,000 years old. We can give you countless links but it is information that is very easy to find. Have you ever looked at this science?

Actual Science shows that the earth CAN be 6,000 years old. All Scientists look at the same evidence, it's just that they draw different conclusions based on that same evidence. I can give you lots of links and information too. I grew up in pubic Schools and went to College. Yes I have looked that the evidence on BOTH sides. Have you really studied the other side?

 

[Scoresman]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

Thank you for answering.

My guess, based on your answers, is we don’t have a ton of common ground to discuss on this as we are, for all intents and purposes, speaking different languages.

All the best to you though.

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

Because there is this thing called actual science that has demonstrated that there is no possible way the earth can be 6,000 years old. We can give you countless links but it is information that is very easy to find. Have you ever looked at this science?

Actual Science shows that the earth CAN be 6,000 years old. All Scientists look at the same evidence, it's just that they draw different conclusions based on that same evidence. I can give you lots of links and information too. I grew up in pubic Schools and went to College. Yes I have looked that the evidence on BOTH sides. Have you really studied the other side?

I looked at your link extensively. Although it took me to something about neptune so not sure if it was the right page. But it seems to be based on the assumption that the Bible is an absolute literal truth that can be used as evidence. I did not need to read much further after that. They need to be providing evidence that what is in or suggested by the Bible is true, with evidence, not making the leap that it is true solely as the word of God. That is not how science works.

 

[Zow]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

Thank you for answering.

My guess, based on your answers, is we don’t have a ton of common ground to discuss on this as we are, for all intents and purposes, speaking different languages.

All the best to you though.

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

Because there is this thing called actual science that has demonstrated that there is no possible way the earth can be 6,000 years old. We can give you countless links but it is information that is very easy to find. Have you ever looked at this science?

Actual Science shows that the earth CAN be 6,000 years old. All Scientists look at the same evidence, it's just that they draw different conclusions based on that same evidence. I can give you lots of links and information too. I grew up in pubic Schools and went to College. Yes I have looked that the evidence on BOTH sides. Have you really studied the other side?

Oh come on... in the same sentence as explaining you attended schools through higher education?

 

[dkp993]

Oh come on... in the same sentence as explaining you attended schools through higher education?

still Not sure what Your talking about

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

1. Realize that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior:

Whose fault is this? Why am I condemned to be a sinner? Why am I condemned a second time for being who I was created to be?

2. Because of our sins, we die both spiritually and physically

Fair enough. The price of life is eventually death. So?

...have a chance not to have to go to hell

Why is anyone going to hell, at least a fire and brimstone version of hell just for being who they were created to be?

...by accepting what He did on the cross

So, salvation is earned? There is no, by definition grace?

3. If you will confess Jesus Christ as Your Lord, place your Faith in Him and Believe in your heart that He died, shed His blood and rose again as a sacrifice for your sins, you will be saved (from hell).

This is contradictory. Either Jesus died for our sins or he didn't. Why would the sin of not fully believing be any different?

4. You must submit your life to Jesus Christ and His will in Faith,

So, grace has nothing to do with this at all?

You see the gospels I follow say that we were given the gift grace? Something by definition that we cannot do anything to receive on our own. And that this gift of grace, and this salvation is to free us to people of God. To allow to try to be good people, godly people without fear of our mistakes [not living up to the ideal]. The Good News!


Grace be with you!

 

[-fish-]

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

That site is filled with political propaganda.

Well, there's a lot of nonsense and pseudo-science, mixed in with arguments of "because that's what the bible says."

I did read through the discussion of special relativity and how the fact that we can't measure the speed of light in one direction explains both the instantaneous creation of the heavens and the fact that it would take billions of years for the light from other galaxies to reach us. Apparently the earth was created with the light from the stars reaching us instantaneously, and the speed of light only applies on the return, so no laws of physics are broken. Well, unless you consider the relativity of simultaneity, then it sort of falls apart.

Also, I have a legitimate question:

If you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, do you also necessarily believe that the earth is flat? That the firmament and all that aren't metaphorical but literal? Is the venn diagram of young earthers and flat earthers a circle?

 

[Navin Johnson]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

True, but if you aren't going to believe teh whole Bible, it's pointless. The fact is that it's all true.

So again, this is at least the 4th question I’ve asked you haven’t responded too, please answer the questions. Are you saying there is no proof the universe/world is older than 6000ish years? Also where is the archaeological proof of a world wide flood or DNA evidence of each and every species spawning from two “parents” of said species? Thank you.

Also, as I asked earlier, are you of the belief that the universe must have a moment of creation but God doesn’t?

Thanks.

i apologize, I am trying to get to your questions and am still getting used to how this site operates. There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Here is a site to answer many of your questions regarding that stuff:

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.

answersingenesis.org

Yes there is DNA evidence that all humans came from 3 families (Of Noah)

Thank you for answering.

My guess, based on your answers, is we don’t have a ton of common ground to discuss on this as we are, for all intents and purposes, speaking different languages.

All the best to you though.

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

Because there is this thing called actual science that has demonstrated that there is no possible way the earth can be 6,000 years old. We can give you countless links but it is information that is very easy to find. Have you ever looked at this science?

Actual Science shows that the earth CAN be 6,000 years old. All Scientists look at the same evidence, it's just that they draw different conclusions based on that same evidence. I can give you lots of links and information too. I grew up in pubic Schools and went to College. Yes I have looked that the evidence on BOTH sides. Have you really studied the other side?

I have, and find it comical that anyone can come to the young Earth conclusion. It is virtually imposible to objectively come to that conclusion.

 

[dgreen]

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

There used to be numerous religion related threads around here. There was for three years a "believers vs non-believers" fantasy football league here. Many, many creation vs evolution discussions. The default position posting here should be that everyone has read the answers in genesis apologetics. The poster that you provided a link earlier in this thread mentioned "apologetics". While I don't know for certain that he has read it, or read it recently I'm pretty certain he is at least aware of the arguments.

I fall in the not recently camp, but once upon a time that page you posted would have said that "we have all of the same evidence, same facts" that the "Darwinism" group has plus the truth to understand them. (Paraphrasing of course.) Speaking only for myself the answer in genesis people have all of these puzzle pieces that they jam into the finished picture they want, whether they truly fit or not, whether they are missing pieces or not, whether they end up with extra pieces. Their approximately 5500 BC date of creation (if you read the early Greek manuscripts) or 4000 BC (from the later accepted Jewish versions) may very well be correct as far as what happened, but their methodologies to argue this is entirely unconvincing and often ridiculous.

Christians would be better served in my opinion if they just admit to themselves, to lean into the idea that they (we) believe in crazy stuff. And stop trying to pretend that it is supposed to make sense logically, scientifically, etc. Whether it is 100% factual or 100% metaphor (or equivalent) shouldn't make a difference to whether or not it is true.

You stated that the point of this thread is how to get to heaven. Isn't that solidly covered by Jesus in Luke 10 :25 (give or take) to the end? Doesn't Paul simplify that in Romans 13:10 and Galatians 5:14? And 1 John 3 and 4 explain where Christ fits in? Where salvation fits in? What does the age of the universe add to that?

It's interesting that there are so many amazing things to talk about with the Bible, yet the age of the earth is what is dominating this thread.

 

[TennesseeJed]

If you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, do you also necessarily believe that the earth is flat?

Why would those beliefs be correlated? Am I missing something?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

There used to be numerous religion related threads around here. There was for three years a "believers vs non-believers" fantasy football league here. Many, many creation vs evolution discussions. The default position posting here should be that everyone has read the answers in genesis apologetics. The poster that you provided a link earlier in this thread mentioned "apologetics". While I don't know for certain that he has read it, or read it recently I'm pretty certain he is at least aware of the arguments.

I fall in the not recently camp, but once upon a time that page you posted would have said that "we have all of the same evidence, same facts" that the "Darwinism" group has plus the truth to understand them. (Paraphrasing of course.) Speaking only for myself the answer in genesis people have all of these puzzle pieces that they jam into the finished picture they want, whether they truly fit or not, whether they are missing pieces or not, whether they end up with extra pieces. Their approximately 5500 BC date of creation (if you read the early Greek manuscripts) or 4000 BC (from the later accepted Jewish versions) may very well be correct as far as what happened, but their methodologies to argue this is entirely unconvincing and often ridiculous.

Christians would be better served in my opinion if they just admit to themselves, to lean into the idea that they (we) believe in crazy stuff. And stop trying to pretend that it is supposed to make sense logically, scientifically, etc. Whether it is 100% factual or 100% metaphor (or equivalent) shouldn't make a difference to whether or not it is true.

You stated that the point of this thread is how to get to heaven. Isn't that solidly covered by Jesus in Luke 10 :25 (give or take) to the end? Doesn't Paul simplify that in Romans 13:10 and Galatians 5:14? And 1 John 3 and 4 explain where Christ fits in? Where salvation fits in? What does the age of the universe add to that?

It's interesting that there are so many amazing things to talk about with the Bible, yet the age of the earth is what is dominating this thread.

In fairness, this thread is basically one extreme fundamentalist arguing with people who want to relitigate the Great Atheism Debate of the early 00s. Of course they're going to talk about the age of the earth. That's all these people ever talk about. It's been 20 years now.

 

[bigbottom]

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

There used to be numerous religion related threads around here. There was for three years a "believers vs non-believers" fantasy football league here. Many, many creation vs evolution discussions. The default position posting here should be that everyone has read the answers in genesis apologetics. The poster that you provided a link earlier in this thread mentioned "apologetics". While I don't know for certain that he has read it, or read it recently I'm pretty certain he is at least aware of the arguments.

I fall in the not recently camp, but once upon a time that page you posted would have said that "we have all of the same evidence, same facts" that the "Darwinism" group has plus the truth to understand them. (Paraphrasing of course.) Speaking only for myself the answer in genesis people have all of these puzzle pieces that they jam into the finished picture they want, whether they truly fit or not, whether they are missing pieces or not, whether they end up with extra pieces. Their approximately 5500 BC date of creation (if you read the early Greek manuscripts) or 4000 BC (from the later accepted Jewish versions) may very well be correct as far as what happened, but their methodologies to argue this is entirely unconvincing and often ridiculous.

Christians would be better served in my opinion if they just admit to themselves, to lean into the idea that they (we) believe in crazy stuff. And stop trying to pretend that it is supposed to make sense logically, scientifically, etc. Whether it is 100% factual or 100% metaphor (or equivalent) shouldn't make a difference to whether or not it is true.

You stated that the point of this thread is how to get to heaven. Isn't that solidly covered by Jesus in Luke 10 :25 (give or take) to the end? Doesn't Paul simplify that in Romans 13:10 and Galatians 5:14? And 1 John 3 and 4 explain where Christ fits in? Where salvation fits in? What does the age of the universe add to that?

It's interesting that there are so many amazing things to talk about with the Bible, yet the age of the earth is what is dominating this thread.

In fairness, this thread is basically one extreme fundamentalist arguing with people who want to relitigate the Great Atheism Debate of the early 00s. Of course they're going to talk about the age of the earth. That's all these people ever talk about. It's been 20 years now.

That is not true. We also argue about the capacity of the ark.

 

[Scoresman]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Where is my water to wine sink faucet attachment?

 

[BlackCrowes]

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

There used to be numerous religion related threads around here. There was for three years a "believers vs non-believers" fantasy football league here. Many, many creation vs evolution discussions. The default position posting here should be that everyone has read the answers in genesis apologetics. The poster that you provided a link earlier in this thread mentioned "apologetics". While I don't know for certain that he has read it, or read it recently I'm pretty certain he is at least aware of the arguments.

I fall in the not recently camp, but once upon a time that page you posted would have said that "we have all of the same evidence, same facts" that the "Darwinism" group has plus the truth to understand them. (Paraphrasing of course.) Speaking only for myself the answer in genesis people have all of these puzzle pieces that they jam into the finished picture they want, whether they truly fit or not, whether they are missing pieces or not, whether they end up with extra pieces. Their approximately 5500 BC date of creation (if you read the early Greek manuscripts) or 4000 BC (from the later accepted Jewish versions) may very well be correct as far as what happened, but their methodologies to argue this is entirely unconvincing and often ridiculous.

Christians would be better served in my opinion if they just admit to themselves, to lean into the idea that they (we) believe in crazy stuff. And stop trying to pretend that it is supposed to make sense logically, scientifically, etc. Whether it is 100% factual or 100% metaphor (or equivalent) shouldn't make a difference to whether or not it is true.

You stated that the point of this thread is how to get to heaven. Isn't that solidly covered by Jesus in Luke 10 :25 (give or take) to the end? Doesn't Paul simplify that in Romans 13:10 and Galatians 5:14? And 1 John 3 and 4 explain where Christ fits in? Where salvation fits in? What does the age of the universe add to that?

It's interesting that there are so many amazing things to talk about with the Bible, yet the age of the earth is what is dominating this thread.

In fairness, this thread is basically one extreme fundamentalist arguing with people who want to relitigate the Great Atheism Debate of the early 00s. Of course they're going to talk about the age of the earth. That's all these people ever talk about. It's been 20 years now.

That is not true. We also argue about the capacity of the ark.

No carnivores please

 

[-fish-]

If you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, do you also necessarily believe that the earth is flat?

Why would those beliefs be correlated? Am I missing something?

Flat earthers typically rely on the biblical notion of a firmament to explain away basically all astronomy, just like young earth creationists explain away observable evidence by relying on Genesis as literal--everything was created as it is, therefore we don't need to take into account things like the speed of light, geological records, etc. Flat earthers also typically refer to biblical passages relating to the corners of the earth, a tree so tall it can be seen from all boundaries of the earth, etc. The bible is either literal or it isn't. For those that believe it is literal, it seems like both the young earth and flat earth positions would be consistent.

There are certainly flat earthers that aren't young-earth creationists, but it seems like young-earth creationists would also be flat earthers. Thus my question.

 

[-fish-]

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

There used to be numerous religion related threads around here. There was for three years a "believers vs non-believers" fantasy football league here. Many, many creation vs evolution discussions. The default position posting here should be that everyone has read the answers in genesis apologetics. The poster that you provided a link earlier in this thread mentioned "apologetics". While I don't know for certain that he has read it, or read it recently I'm pretty certain he is at least aware of the arguments.

I fall in the not recently camp, but once upon a time that page you posted would have said that "we have all of the same evidence, same facts" that the "Darwinism" group has plus the truth to understand them. (Paraphrasing of course.) Speaking only for myself the answer in genesis people have all of these puzzle pieces that they jam into the finished picture they want, whether they truly fit or not, whether they are missing pieces or not, whether they end up with extra pieces. Their approximately 5500 BC date of creation (if you read the early Greek manuscripts) or 4000 BC (from the later accepted Jewish versions) may very well be correct as far as what happened, but their methodologies to argue this is entirely unconvincing and often ridiculous.

Christians would be better served in my opinion if they just admit to themselves, to lean into the idea that they (we) believe in crazy stuff. And stop trying to pretend that it is supposed to make sense logically, scientifically, etc. Whether it is 100% factual or 100% metaphor (or equivalent) shouldn't make a difference to whether or not it is true.

You stated that the point of this thread is how to get to heaven. Isn't that solidly covered by Jesus in Luke 10 :25 (give or take) to the end? Doesn't Paul simplify that in Romans 13:10 and Galatians 5:14? And 1 John 3 and 4 explain where Christ fits in? Where salvation fits in? What does the age of the universe add to that?

It's interesting that there are so many amazing things to talk about with the Bible, yet the age of the earth is what is dominating this thread.

In fairness, this thread is basically one extreme fundamentalist arguing with people who want to relitigate the Great Atheism Debate of the early 00s. Of course they're going to talk about the age of the earth. That's all these people ever talk about. It's been 20 years now.

That is not true. We also argue about the capacity of the ark.

and dragons. don't forget the dragons.

:larryboybatsignal:

 

[Captain Cranks]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Or why Jesus wouldn't have done something more substantial like tell people there was stuff in their drinking water that was causing them to die.

 

[-fish-]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Or why Jesus wouldn't have done something more substantial like tell people there was stuff in their drinking water that was causing them to die.

to be fair, he did change it to wine.

 

[Scoresman]

Yeah, changing water to booze is pretty amazing as far as miracles go. College age me would have been a believer instantly.

 

[Dickies]

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

There used to be numerous religion related threads around here. There was for three years a "believers vs non-believers" fantasy football league here. Many, many creation vs evolution discussions. The default position posting here should be that everyone has read the answers in genesis apologetics. The poster that you provided a link earlier in this thread mentioned "apologetics". While I don't know for certain that he has read it, or read it recently I'm pretty certain he is at least aware of the arguments.

I fall in the not recently camp, but once upon a time that page you posted would have said that "we have all of the same evidence, same facts" that the "Darwinism" group has plus the truth to understand them. (Paraphrasing of course.) Speaking only for myself the answer in genesis people have all of these puzzle pieces that they jam into the finished picture they want, whether they truly fit or not, whether they are missing pieces or not, whether they end up with extra pieces. Their approximately 5500 BC date of creation (if you read the early Greek manuscripts) or 4000 BC (from the later accepted Jewish versions) may very well be correct as far as what happened, but their methodologies to argue this is entirely unconvincing and often ridiculous.

Christians would be better served in my opinion if they just admit to themselves, to lean into the idea that they (we) believe in crazy stuff. And stop trying to pretend that it is supposed to make sense logically, scientifically, etc. Whether it is 100% factual or 100% metaphor (or equivalent) shouldn't make a difference to whether or not it is true.

You stated that the point of this thread is how to get to heaven. Isn't that solidly covered by Jesus in Luke 10 :25 (give or take) to the end? Doesn't Paul simplify that in Romans 13:10 and Galatians 5:14? And 1 John 3 and 4 explain where Christ fits in? Where salvation fits in? What does the age of the universe add to that?

It's interesting that there are so many amazing things to talk about with the Bible, yet the age of the earth is what is dominating this thread.

In fairness, this thread is basically one extreme fundamentalist arguing with people who want to relitigate the Great Atheism Debate of the early 00s. Of course they're going to talk about the age of the earth. That's all these people ever talk about. It's been 20 years now.

That is not true. We also argue about the capacity of the ark.

And if the ark had dinosaurs on it.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

No carnivores please

All carnivores were moved to a separate deck of the ark after the unfortunate incident with the 2 unicorns.

 

[Mister CIA]

Why do you say that? I can discuss this, but why can't you look at a link that goes into detail and answers many questions?

There used to be numerous religion related threads around here. There was for three years a "believers vs non-believers" fantasy football league here. Many, many creation vs evolution discussions. The default position posting here should be that everyone has read the answers in genesis apologetics. The poster that you provided a link earlier in this thread mentioned "apologetics". While I don't know for certain that he has read it, or read it recently I'm pretty certain he is at least aware of the arguments.

I fall in the not recently camp, but once upon a time that page you posted would have said that "we have all of the same evidence, same facts" that the "Darwinism" group has plus the truth to understand them. (Paraphrasing of course.) Speaking only for myself the answer in genesis people have all of these puzzle pieces that they jam into the finished picture they want, whether they truly fit or not, whether they are missing pieces or not, whether they end up with extra pieces. Their approximately 5500 BC date of creation (if you read the early Greek manuscripts) or 4000 BC (from the later accepted Jewish versions) may very well be correct as far as what happened, but their methodologies to argue this is entirely unconvincing and often ridiculous.

Christians would be better served in my opinion if they just admit to themselves, to lean into the idea that they (we) believe in crazy stuff. And stop trying to pretend that it is supposed to make sense logically, scientifically, etc. Whether it is 100% factual or 100% metaphor (or equivalent) shouldn't make a difference to whether or not it is true.

You stated that the point of this thread is how to get to heaven. Isn't that solidly covered by Jesus in Luke 10 :25 (give or take) to the end? Doesn't Paul simplify that in Romans 13:10 and Galatians 5:14? And 1 John 3 and 4 explain where Christ fits in? Where salvation fits in? What does the age of the universe add to that?

It's interesting that there are so many amazing things to talk about with the Bible, yet the age of the earth is what is dominating this thread.

In fairness, this thread is basically one extreme fundamentalist arguing with people who want to relitigate the Great Atheism Debate of the early 00s. Of course they're going to talk about the age of the earth. That's all these people ever talk about. It's been 20 years now.

That is not true. We also argue about the capacity of the ark.

and dragons. don't forget the dragons.

:larryboybatsignal:

Can I get a price check on virgin births?

 

[Dan Lambskin]

No carnivores please

All carnivores were moved to a separate deck of the ark after the unfortunate incident with the 2 unicorns.

Don’t forget most of the drawings you see show 2 male lions…quite the miracle indeed

 

[Scoresman]

No carnivores please

All carnivores were moved to a separate deck of the ark after the unfortunate incident with the 2 unicorns.

Don’t forget most of the drawings you see show 2 male lions…quite the miracle indeed

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

 

[3C's]

8B years? Must have been a rounding error.

Deep space radio signal reaches Earth after 8 billion years

A mysterious and powerful burst of radio waves reached Earth after traveling through space for 8 billion years dubbed FRB 20220610A.

www.earth.com