[_ Old Earth _] Earths Age

[Jacks Bratt]

John 1:12

I agree. I am a child of God. I am not, however, a being that can be called one of the "sons of God" as mentioned in the OT.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I think it's time to move past all the angel debate and get back to the topic. If anyone would like to start a thread about these angels you are more than welcomed to do so as here it has nothing to do with the earths age. Thank you

Understood..my apologies

 

[brujaq]

Job 1:4, 1:13

 

[brujaq]

I agree. I am a child of God. I am not, however, a being that can be called one of the "sons of God" as mentioned in the OT.

1 John 3:1-2

 

[for_his_glory]

Understood..my apologies

No need to apologize as I got caught up in it too and it's my thread I started. I just didn't want things to get heated as the topic of sons of God and angels have in the past, plus it is a bit off topic. I think it has played out and our minds are going another direction

 

[Jacks Bratt]

1 John 3:1-2

One last retort to you on this subject.

"sons of God" and "child of god" are different characterizations.

 

[brujaq]

My last one and go to 7 min if you can't watch it all

 

[Jacks Bratt]

My last one and go to 7 min if you can't watch it all

Thanks for the video, however, I have no issues with you, but this guy....He's wack, IMO of course.

God bless you brujaq, look me up in glory and we can laugh about all the things we got wrong. I know you are Christ's follower.. we just see things differently.

 

[stovebolts]

No offense, Brujaq, but "Sons of God" is angels. The Bible does say that these "Son's of God" saw the daughters of men. Just in saying that they saw the daughters of men would indicate that they were not men themselves. Later is says that the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them. Again, why the distinction between "Son's of God" and daughters of "Men". I think it is clear.

Then you go on to say "I guess" and "who knows"

The reason that this never happened again is due to the severity of the punishment given to these angels that committed this crime against God.

It looks like you have read, or at least dabbled in the "Book of Enoch". Go to this book and read what it says about Michael, when he read the punishment or sentence... It says he was shaking.... To angels, this punishment must have been of such magnitude that Michael, and innocent party, shook with fear in reading the sentence to those who were convicted.

Adam, was the son of God, created in Gods Image.
Adam begat sons, in his image. This, would mean that Seth and his brothers were "sons of God". Please see Genesis 5:1-5
As Christians, we are also called sons of God, as was Israel. Please see Exodus 4:22

 

[brujaq]

Adam, was the son of God, created in Gods Image.
Adam begat sons, in his image. This, would mean that Seth and his brothers were "sons of God". Please see Genesis 5:1-5
As Christians, we are also called sons of God, as was Israel. Please see Exodus 4:22

I agree, Found this yesterday just snooping around , check out beginning 5:00 for a couple minutes if you don't have time to watch it all

 

[stovebolts]

There are 3 main races that I know of, caucasian, mongloid and negroid, all represented on the Ark . God brought which animals he wanted to Noah to put on the Ark . There may well have been a couple races of man existed pre-flood that didn't make representation on the Ark .. It is said Mrs Noahs sarcophagus was 18 ' long found in the mnts of Ararat at the Ark site and her jewelry which was giant but stolen and sold on the black market ... And I believe there are/were giants but fully human and kinds after their kinds not hybrid angellic

I believe there is only 1 human race, and all nationalities were represented within Adam.
It is widely accepted that in theory, you can breed a poodle from a wolf. But you can't breed a wolf from a poodle. Why? The way I understand it is this.
The wolf has a complete set of DNA that matches a poodle. But it also has much, much more DNA. By selective breeding, you reduce the DNA footprint. Do this long enough, and you've reduced the pool and created a new breed of the same kind.

If we take this concept back to Adam and Eve, they were more than likely "giants", as were their direct offspring. As generations passed, the laws of natural selection would have taken it's toll.

 

[dirtfarmer]

I believe there is only 1 human race, and all nationalities were represented within Adam.
It is widely accepted that in theory, you can breed a poodle from a wolf. But you can't breed a wolf from a poodle. Why? The way I understand it is this.
The wolf has a complete set of DNA that matches a poodle. But it also has much, much more DNA. By selective breeding, you reduce the DNA footprint. Do this long enough, and you've reduced the pool and created a new breed of the same kind.

If we take this concept back to Adam and Eve, they were more than likely "giants", as were their direct offspring. As generations passed, the laws of natural selection would have taken it's toll.

hello StoveBolts, dirtfarmer here

I agree that there is only one race and it is the human race. There are different ethnicities, or as some describe it as tribes, but only one human race.

The explanation you have given makes sense. There is also mutations that have happened which corrupt DNA.

The law of thermodynamics, that every thing was created at it best and then entropy happens degrading the original,

 

[brujaq]

I believe there is only 1 human race, and all nationalities were represented within Adam.
It is widely accepted that in theory, you can breed a poodle from a wolf. But you can't breed a wolf from a poodle. Why? The way I understand it is this.
The wolf has a complete set of DNA that matches a poodle. But it also has much, much more DNA. By selective breeding, you reduce the DNA footprint. Do this long enough, and you've reduced the pool and created a new breed of the same kind.

If we take this concept back to Adam and Eve, they were more than likely "giants", as were their direct offspring. As generations passed, the laws of natural selection would have taken it's toll.

I agree but I'm strictly YEC and don't care to change any ones mind, but like I mentioned previous there's a lot of kids (teenagers and young 20's) that ask logical fair questions .. I've fasted for 7 days (only water) many times with fervent prayer and 3 days many times and received many answers like we all do .. I am within the confines of the Word and if you can prove I'm wrong accordingly I'll change even though I may use the words ''I guess or who knows'' at times to allow room for opposition , James 4:2-3 .. Like I've also mentioned I'm not well churched on traditions but I know my way around .. I've had the privilege to lead many to the Lord (more like todays Nephilim and brute beasts) and not at church where they were already looking for God .. I'm not looking for any thing new but I do seek answers , I'm older now , the last time I fasted 3 days I drank a cup of coffee breaking the fast that morning and passed out but my wife said I was dead and didn't breath for over 20 minutes and the ambulance was on the way, my wife was crying, trying to give me mouth to mouth , shaking me , screaming my name when I opened my eyes (actually she said my eyes were open the whole time) and said ''what's up'' then demanded she call the ambulance off when I found out, so I haven't fasted since 1 1/2 yrs ago . What was really weird my preacher at the church I went to when we went to our NC beach place collapsed and thought dead in the aisle that same weekend while preaching and a nurse brought him back after 20 minutes and he retired .. I never mentioned my occurrence to any of them .. I've never been close to perfect, kinda more like a tumbleweed headed in the right direction but off course some too instead of a fine straight line . I can barely read and never read a whole book besides maybe the Bible and that never straight through at a time .. You've heard ''good cop bad cop'' many of the atheists and agnostics I've worked with got both barrels of Jesus from me and just about all were offended and actually went to the quiet Christians to tell on me , then the quiet Christians had a chance to step up and soften or water it down a little but there was a stirring none the less .. Amen praise the Lord that they were stirred and many eventually come to Jesus though I caught their hell, no problem ..You can tell folks Cain married his sister or mother even though the Bible doesn't say or insinuate it to me .. I'm glad we love Jesus and everything he ever says and does, amen .. God Bless ..

 

[for_his_glory]

Come on guys. What does any of this have to do with the age of the earth? This would be time before the creation of man! I was hoping for more input, but I guess it has played out, so be it.

 

[KevinK]

OK, back to topic, for real this time...

No one can say how old the earth is as even science can not agree with its age using carbon dating.

True, but other types of radiometric-dating, other than carbon-dating, puts the age of the planet at around 4.5 billion years. The age of the universe (using other methods) has been estimated at around 14 billion years.

Today Stephen Hawkin discussed some theories about the nature of time in relation to the beginning of the universe. It got me thinking of a different theory I've been considering. Does anyone have any views on time compression? It could be a nifty way to reconcile both Scripture and Science.

A lot of the discussion on the creation of the universe and the earth specifically makes the assumption that time-flow is constant. As Hawkin reminds us, this is for the most part a very bad assumption. At singularity, all the laws of physics regarding the space-time continuum were compressed, including time. To keep it simple, time probably flowed much, much faster for the first 10 billion years.

So what if the 7 days mentioned in Genesis were much longer than the current earthly counterparts? If each "day" lasted about 2 billion years by our standard, you could have a 4.5 billion year old planet built in the Biblical 2 days. Well, a bit longer than 2 days, a little into the third day to fully form the planet.

By my reading of Genesis, the earth was fully-formed a little into the third day.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Edit by Stovebolts

Let's get this back on track.

2- Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

4- No ad hominem attacks. Again, address ideas, not people.

 

[brujaq]

Edit by Stovebolts

Let's get this back on track.

2- Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

4- No ad hominem attacks. Again, address ideas, not people.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

OK, back to topic, for real this time...


True, but other types of radiometric-dating, other than carbon-dating, puts the age of the planet at around 4.5 billion years. The age of the universe (using other methods) has been estimated at around 14 billion years.

Today Stephen Hawkin discussed some theories about the nature of time in relation to the beginning of the universe. It got me thinking of a different theory I've been considering. Does anyone have any views on time compression? It could be a nifty way to reconcile both Scripture and Science.

A lot of the discussion on the creation of the universe and the earth specifically makes the assumption that time-flow is constant. As Hawkin reminds us, this is for the most part a very bad assumption. At singularity, all the laws of physics regarding the space-time continuum were compressed, including time. To keep it simple, time probably flowed much, much faster for the first 10 billion years.

So what if the 7 days mentioned in Genesis were much longer than the current earthly counterparts? If each "day" lasted about 2 billion years by our standard, you could have a 4.5 billion year old planet built in the Biblical 2 days. Well, a bit longer than 2 days, a little into the third day to fully form the planet.

By my reading of Genesis, the earth was fully-formed a little into the third day.

Let me try this again.... Steven Hawking, who speaks through a computer now... is not, IMO a source of any information any more. There is no way to prove that he is even cognitive or is even doing the speaking.

I hope that I can make this point without being "edited" again.

 

[stovebolts]

Let me try this again.... Steven Hawking, who speaks through a computer now... is not, IMO a source of any information any more. There is no way to prove that he is even cognitive or is even doing the speaking.

I hope that I can make this point without being "edited" again.

Please focus your efforts on the content of Steven Hawkings work, not his persons.

 

[KevinK]

To be honest everone, I wasn't even responding to earlier posts on Stephen Hawking. I simply read the article that came out yesterday and it reminded me of a pet theory I have. No offense ever.

This theory is my own, it just dovetails with his recent ideas.