Age of the Earth

[Dizerner]

what did you think of Setterfield's chronology? If you get the Exodus date wrong, then Jericho fell before Israelites got there. Also, the chronology before Exodus will be determined incorrectly.

I respect that it's older rather than younger, but I tend to side with the reasoning in Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus. A lot of convergent lines of evidence. It may be that the sites are incorrectly dated, rather than the dates are incorrect, and that's something to consider. I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.

 

[mikesw]

I respect that it's older rather than younger, but I tend to side with the reasoning in Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus. A lot of convergent lines of evidence. It may be that the sites are incorrectly dated, rather than the dates are incorrect, and that's something to consider. I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.

I did not really find basis in that video to reject the Setterfield chronology. Jericho can fit in the Setterfield chronology and possibly better in that time frame. I did not check into the destruction of the other cities, as to when those happened.
Thanks for mentioning that.

 

[mikesw]

not so much. The ancient sages and Rabbis will suffice.
Shalom שלום

The problem in such absolute reliance rejects the sense that more eyes on the issue can reveal more refined knowledge.

 

[mikesw]

I respect that it's older rather than younger, but I tend to side with the reasoning in Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus. A lot of convergent lines of evidence. It may be that the sites are incorrectly dated, rather than the dates are incorrect, and that's something to consider. I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.

The video does mention the Hyksos as those who took over Egypt after the pharaoh of the Exodus died. But the video wanted to shift the Egyptian timeline instead of the possible correction of the bible timeline. Also, with the earlier bible timeline, the search for evidence of the Exodus changes a bit. There is some video that said they found key confirmation of the Exodus -- some tower at the exit point or something like that

 

[Dizerner]

The video does mention the Hyksos as those who took over Egypt after the pharaoh of the Exodus died. But the video wanted to shift the Egyptian timeline instead of the possible correction of the bible timeline. Also, with the earlier bible timeline, the search for evidence of the Exodus changes a bit. There is some video that said they found key confirmation of the Exodus -- some tower at the exit point or something like that

Shifting the timeline is not so crazy as it may appear. The issue is very complex. There are Egyptologists like Roll who were ostracized in their passion to bring new ideas and possible mistakes that get entrenched in the thinking.

There were two pillars on either side of the crossing suggested by Patterns. You should watch their "Red Sea" part 1 and 2, it's honestly really good. The pillar on the left side, is fallen, eroded and defaced. Ron Wyatt is the only witness to the pillar on the east side, and he claimed it still had legible Hebrew on it, but he claims that after he found it, the Saudi's came and took it away, as they do with many relics.

 

[Removed]

The problem in such absolute reliance rejects the sense that more eyes on the issue can reveal more refined knowledge.

Or it could reveal less refined knowledge.
Shalom

 

[mikesw]

Or it could reveal less refined knowledge.
Shalom

good minds can make decisions here, not just neglect the arguments. Any group that gets idolized usually just causes problems. But choose as you are inclined. The argument by Setterfield seems quite decent.

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
I've heard it said that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link.

Well; in order for folks to use the genealogies to calculate the age of the earth,
wouldn't they have to base their calculations upon the assumption that each of the
six days of creation were 24-hour events? Well; supposing their understanding of
the terms "evening and morning" is mistaken and it turns out that the terms are
merely index flags?

It looks to me that there are two kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One
is a creation day and the other is a natural day. I believe it's very important to
keep those two kinds of days distinctly separate in our thinking because they are as
unalike as sand and gravel.

Creation days are a bit problematic because there were no solar events to be seen
on Earth till the fourth day. And-- when you think about it --a strict chronology of
evening and morning defines overnight; viz: darkness (Lev 24:2-4). In order to
obtain a full 24-hour day, we'd have to define creation Days as a day and a night
rather than an evening and a morning.

Now, according to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all terra critters on the
sixth day; which has to include prehistoric creatures because on no other day did
God create beasts but the sixth.

However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that prehistoric creatures preceded humans by
several million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be
taken to represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an unreasonable
posit; for example:

● Gen 6:14 . . Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark
with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch.

The Hebrew word translated "pitch" in his case basically pertains to bitumen; a
naturally-occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things.

In order for bitumen to be available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it
was formed had to exist on the earth several thousands of years before him. In
point of fact, I read somewhere that the biomass that gave us fossil fuels existed
even before the dinosaurs. That's really going back a ways. However, it does fit the
narrative because vegetation was created prior to the creation of animals on land.

Also:

● Gen 2:4 . .These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created, in the day that The Lord God made earth and heaven.

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is the very same word for each of the six
days of God's creation labors. Since the word here refers to a period of time
obviously much longer than twenty-four hours; it justifies suggesting that each of the
six days of creation were longer than twenty-four hours.
_

 

[Doug Brents]

However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that prehistoric creatures preceded humans by
several million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be
taken to represent eras rather than 24-hour events.

You have a problem here, because the book of Job depicts and describes at least a couple of dinosaurs (behemoth and leviathan) as being present and known to Job. And one of the men who talks to Job was Bildad the Shuhite. Shuah was one of the sons of Abraham by the woman he married after Sarah died; Keturah (Gen 25:2).

That's not an unreasonable posit; for example:

● Gen 6:14 . . Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark
with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch.

The Hebrew word translated "pitch" in his case basically pertains to bitumen; a
naturally-occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things.

In order for bitumen to be available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it
was formed had to exist on the earth several thousands of years before him. In
point of fact, I read somewhere that the biomass that gave us fossil fuels existed
even before the dinosaurs. That's really going back a ways. However, it does fit the
narrative because vegetation was created prior to the creation of animals on land.

This kind of argument has been around for ages, but there is a problem with it as well. Diamonds are supposedly created by immense pressure and temperature over "millions" of years also. But when railroad track across America are removed (after only 100 to 150 years), diamonds have been found in the ties under those tracks. Even if these are poor quality and only rudimentary diamonds, they were still formed in a person's lifetime, not millions of years. And the Flood occurred 1658 years after Creation. This gives plenty of time for pitch to have been formed "naturally", and that presumes that God did not create some already formed when He created everything else. He created iron ore, Gold, etc. Why could He not have created bitumen (pitch, tar)? Why must it have formed from the microorganisms and other things?

Also:

● Gen 2:4 . .These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created, in the day that The Lord God made earth and heaven.

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is the very same word for each of the six
days of God's creation labors. Since the word here refers to a period of time
obviously much longer than twenty-four hours; it justifies suggesting that each of the
six days of creation were longer than twenty-four hours.
_

I can see your point, but consider, even today we speak in terms of "in David's day" or "in Lincoln's day", meaning his lifetime. And this is the same word "day" that we use to talk about the day we were born. Were we born over an age? Or were we born on a specific day? The word can be used to mean both. But when in chapter 1 it talks about "evening and morning" it gives us parameters for what the "day" was. Was it years? Was it eons? No, it was one day, with one evening and one morning. And this is consistent from day one to day six showing that the days were the same after the sun and moon were created as they were before they were created.

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
The length of creation's six days has been a stone in the shoe for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that those days
consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so Bible readers end up stumped when
trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and
factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous,
etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

NOTE: Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. He believed that science and religion
complement each other, to wit: science answers questions that religion doesn't bother
to answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer.

For example: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking understood pretty well how the
cosmos works; but could never scientifically explain why it should exist at all. Well;
in my estimation, the only possible answer to the "why" is found in intelligent
design; which is a religious explanation rather than scientific. Religion's "why" is
satisfactory for people of faith. No doubt deep thinkers like Michio Kaku, Neil
deGrasse Tyson, Michelle Thaller, and the late Carl Sagan would prefer something a
bit more empirical.
_