TMK
Dec 31, 2020
Starting with an assumption of Uniformitarianism and deep age is a poor way to do science. It is always best to start with an infallible lens (the Bible).
It’s not really "deep age””” they are talking 7000-8000 BC.
They arrive at those dates with a preconceived set of assumptions, i.e. the earth is older than the Bible clearly says, accurate dates can be obtained using index fossils to date strata, and using strata to date index fossils (circular reasoning), accurate dates can be obtained by radiometric dating (Carbon-14 etc.) which also have assumptions built in. So yes, their assumptions are based on uniformitarianism and deep time.
Tell me Todd, when did Noah live, according to the Bible?
//when did Noah live, according to the Bible?//
I have no idea, but if a global flood occurred around 2300 BC it would obviously mean any civilization discovered via archaeology (eg ancient Egypt, Stonehenge, Gobekli Tepe etc had to have been built later.
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: and the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos..."
Add up the dates, it isn't hard...
How long ago did Jesus live, according to historical records?
You are trying to make a point but I have no idea what it is.
One thing I just considered- did the ancients really keep track of their birthdays? How and why?
The Bible has clear genealogical records. If you add up the dates (i.e. Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, Enos lived 905 years etc.) you will understand the flood happened 2458 B.C. according to the Hebrew calendar.
The ancients weren't as dumb as modern people seem to think they were. They made calendars and kept birthdays as far back as Egyptian dynasties. The Bible even says "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11. That seems quite precise to me.
My point in showing you the biblical genealogies is to show you if Jesus was born about 2,000 years ago and He is a real person (and I believe He is), then his descendants had to be real people as well. When you read Matthew chapter 1, it gives a detailed list of His descendants. In verse 17 it says "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." Read Luke 3 and it gives a list of His descendants going all the way back to Adam.
If Jesus' ancestors weren't real, then He couldn't be real.
I understand about the genealogies but I am certainly not disputing that the patriarchs or Adam or Jesus’s ancestors were real people.
In regard to the flood, I can accept it exactly as written in scripture if the whole thing was one big miracle from beginning (the building of the ark for a hundred years) to the gathering of all the animals to the amount of water and caring for and feeding all the animals on the ark (which per the texts had to include fishes and other aquatic animals (coral, sponges, whales) and seeds for every plant, to the landing on the mountain side and the release of all the animals to a barren world with nothing to eat but each other, etc etc. The big question is whether it was all one big miracle. I am not saying it wasn’t, but I don’t think that’s what Ken Ham etc think.
The Bible says Noah was to bring "cattle, fowl and creeping things" (i.e. snakes, lizards etc.). No reason to bring fish, corals, sponges etc. One could read Genesis 6:19 out of context (or force an incorrect interpretation onto the text). Read clearly it means "cattle, fowl and creeping things", not fish. Fish would be able to survive just fine outside the ark. The same with plant life. Seeds can last for quite some time floating on water. Even uprooted trees and plant life floating around could take root again.
It took 150 days for the water to abate. During this time, plant life would begin to grow again. Noah stayed on board the ark for several months while the waters dried up and vegetation took root. So Noah, his family and the animals would have gotten off the ark to a radically different world than they were used to, but not completely barren.
I was thinking more of this verse:
And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.
Genesis 6:17
There are extreme problems with just saying that all marine and lake life and river life could have survived for over a year in the floodwaters. Many aquatic creatures have extremely narrow niches in which they can survive, both salinity wise and where they can live. For example, you can’t just put coral at the bottom of a mile of water with no sunlight. Unless of course God miraculously kept them alive.
And why would God single out only land animals for judgment?
Keep reading past verse 17 and the text explains that "all flesh wherein is the breath of life" means land animals, not aquatic life. Unless, like I said, one wants to force a meaning onto the text to make it look ridiculous. It makes no sense to say Noah brought carp, salmon, whales etc onto the ark in the context of either a global flood or a local one.
We have to remember that the pre-flood world was very different from what we see today. Just look at the fossil record and you can see animals and plants grew much bigger in the past. Salinity levels were in all probability lower than they are now in the oceans; plus animals can adapt to new environments.
God only judged people for their sins, destroying the creation around them was only to kill rebellious humans. Why would God "judge" animals in a local flood? It makes no sense either way.
I believe what the Bible says about Jonah being swallowed by a large fish, for example. I don't say "Well, to me it sounds like an exaggerated story, probably written to ignorant farmers that couldn't understand the world around them. Haw haw. Why, any reasonable man knows a human being can't survive inside of a fish for 3 days and nights. Besides, what kind of fish was it? We don't know of any fish that could keep a man alive inside it for that long..." etc. etc.
I don’t have any problem at all with the account of Jonah. But I do believe he was miraculously kept alive and spit out on the beach.
This discussion is locked.