Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Hi Lee

Yes, you say that you believe the Bible is infallible etc, but you previous comments did not show you ACTUALLY believe it, hence you were perhaps reluctant to express those thoughts in the first place, because you knew I would jump on it.

Before I address a couple of more things, I thought it might be a good idea to do a summary of what people here believe. (if I misrepresent a view here, it ought to be corrected by the person whose view I did not get quite right):

Stu:
The years given are correct, but missing generations would add to the years on top of the simple addition of those numbers (as a note, I still do not comprehend how on earth, but am sure Stu is brewing up an answer)
Further Stu believes the earth is old, at least not mere thousands of years.

Lee:
The years may very well not be accurate. 35 or 39 years for Arphaxad to have Salah in the mail below. (note that the text states 30 years, so I suppose Lee meant to say for Shem to have Arphaxad.)
Lee further believes the Food was about 40,000 years ago, mankind has been around for tens of thousands of years, but the earth is billions of years old.

Bret and Lucien:
The age at which a patriarch begat a next generation is given, these can be added up, and give us about 1600 years to the Flood, and about 4000 to Jesus. (note, we accept the Hebrew would allow for it to be a son, grandson, greatgrandson, etc, but the years remain the same, and therefore the addition of numbers remains the same)
Further, both would age the earth, and the whole universe, at about 6000 years, give or take a few years (but not thousand of years)

I hope this is a fair reflection, albeit it brief and far from complete world-views.


Ok, back to Lee's post, and I will try to be polite... :-)

Lee: "I am sure that each author believed what he wrote was the truth and the people reviewing if for accuracy also believed it to be the truth. I have no doubt about this!"
Do you mean, you have no doubt THEY believed it, or do you believe it to be the truth too?
I hope you do, because it is the truth. It is in God's infallible Word.

Lee: "He doesn't understand there is a better way to live"
I could take this as an insult, but will ask first for you to explain what you mean, although I probably should not, since it might distract from the discussion at hand.

Lee: "I have given you another way of translating these passages but you have chosen to ignore it."
Has it occurred to you that simply if we do not run away with your ideas, that is probably because it does not take our fancy (understatement)?

Lee: "You give me ultimatums saying choose the Bible or Science"
Eh, don't recall any ultimatums.

Lee: "I choose science in this case"
No surprises there then.

Lee: "ecause you are being naive in your interpretation of the Bible and totally inflexible in looking at other possibilities."
Wrong reason as far as I am concerned.
You should always choose the Bible, because it changeth not.

Lee: "Lucien supplements this with hostility"
Hmmm, eye of the beholder comes to mind. But if you perceived it to be hostile, you must have said something that deserved it. Oh yes, you openly put doubt on the book of Genesis. Any atheists on here should buy you a drink for helping their cause...

Lee: "What a fine example of Christian brotherhood to help make your case."
I wonder if the stall-owners in the temple said that too about Jesus. Or what about those Jews that were told they belonged to their father the devil (John 8:44).

Lee: "It is too bad he has to resort to this instead of addressing the points logically."
Hmmm. A man is X years old when he has a descendant. That descendant has another descendant when he is Y years old. How much time has passed? (hint: X+Y). You see, that is quite logic. Anything else, i.e. Stu and Lee, does not only seem illogic, it IS.


Lucien

Bret, thanks for your clarifying remarks on your position. It is nice to know where you are on these topics even though I often disagree with them. Cyber hug for you for this and trying to be the peacemaker here.

It is sometimes good to hit a nerve and shake other loved ones foundations on occassion.  Think of this as an intervention.  I love you guys for your misguided passions on this subject. It is great to see such passion for the Bible these days, there are so few that have any. You are tops in my book for that!    Unfortunately your beliefs and interpretations are flawed and I need to intervene like a good family member should to prevent that person from causing more harm to his family or himself. 

I also need to address my passion for scripture as well, since Lucien keeps challenging my belief in its innerrancy. I have said this before and I will say it again, I love the Bible and believe in its inerrancy. I am sure that each author believed what he wrote was the truth and the people reviewing if for accuracy also believed it to be the truth. I have no doubt about this!

So what if there is a little uncertainty in the year whoever begat whoever. The message and the authority of the Bible is not lost. No one would ever know if Arphaxad had Salah or an ancestor of Salah 35 or 39 years after Araphaxed was born. It was the best records they could produce and that was truth for them. It has no bearing on the Bibles' credibility in my mind. It only has significance to your argument related to the age of the earth. The YE entire argument on the young age of the earth is founded on these verses. It's like trying to take alcohol away from an alcoholic.  The YE will fight to the death to keep it.  He doesn't understand there is a better way to live and get along with others around him.  The only reason you are getting so passionate about these verses and the absolutely rigid chronology related to them is you are feeling threatened as we logically converge on the truth: The age of the earth is billions of years old. Humans are tens of thousands of years old and they evolved from apes. All were evolved by God that way to His exacting specifications. 

I, like many others of my mind set, do not trust or believe certain people's or group's interpretation of some of the Bible passages, especially the ancient Hebrew text relating to the age of the earth and exact listings of ancestory. 

This prolonged discussion is an excellent example of the distortion in translation. I have given you another way of translating these passages but you have chosen to ignore it. It is like you enjoy the conflict between science and the Bible or try to make conflict between them and anyone that disagrees with your one way only interpretation. There is no need for it here. You give me ultimatums saying choose the Bible or Science based on a unnecessarily rigid YE interpretation of a phrase. I choose science in this case because you are being naive in your interpretation of the Bible and totally inflexible in looking at other possibilities.   Lucien supplements this with hostility and antagonistism toward anyone with a different point of view.  What a fine example of Christian brotherhood to help make your case. It is too bad he has to resort to this instead of addressing the points logically. It seems we are inexorably locked in this behavior pattern. What else is there to say on this topic.    

Who was Adam? (2-views)

Lee wants to know if I believe that Adam invented writing?
The answer to that question is Yes & No!
I believe that Adam could write ... read, & do arithmetic too!
But ... I wouldn't credit him with the invention of any of these things!

This is a GREAT example of how HUGE the differences are in our views!

Lee's (OE) mindset is grounded in a Bugs-to-Thugs paradigm!
My (YE) take is an extreme inverse to that! "Perfection to Dissension"!

Lee (most likely) believes that Adam was a dullard ... and was working on creating
things like Fire, the Wheel, or Bongos?
I believe that Adam was (most likely) the Smartest Man (save Jesus) that ever lived !!!
He was PERFECT! Created in God's Image! and Spoke DIRECTLY with God Himself!
Totally untarnished by secular deceptions! With a Brain that was hard-wired & booted-up by God !!!
After Adam sinned ... genetic entropy entered the World ... so when Cain & Abel (the 1st generation copies)
were born ... they (most likely) possessed genetic mistakes in their DNA!
(Adam did NOT! He was PERFECT!)
Adam was created as a MAN!
NOT a boy, baby, or zygote!
He had NO childhood!
And ALL of the psychological destruction that cripples all of us (to some extent)
as we grow-up ... and learn about deception, disappointment, and intimidation!

I believe that ALL of my CRAZY views about Adam ... are nothing more than simple logical
conclusions that are easily drawn from a Straight-up reading of God's Inspired Word !!!
Lee's views would (seem to) be drawn from performing origami with God's Word to make
it conform with the secular views of modern science?

When I think about it! ... The numerical difference is probably the least crucial
thing that divides us ... in our views?


Bret* 2010

Who wrote the Book of Genesis?
I believe that Moses compiled these ancient documents
and added his own explanatory editorial comments where needed.
Genesis 5:1 mentions "the BOOK of the generations of Adam".
And the recurring phrase "These are the generations of ..."
are believed to be the "signatures" of the respective writers
as they concluded their accounts of the events experienced
during their lifetimes, by many Biblical Archaeologists.
Further evidence for this view is the fact that Genesis is cited
over 200 times in the New Testament ... but Moses is never
noted as the author of ANY of these citations!
But ... he is listed as the author of more than 40 other citations
from the other four Books of the Pentateuch!
There are also many references to Moses in the later Books of
the Old Testament ... but NEVER in relation to the Book of Genesis!
There is NO reason to believe that the Creation account was revealed
to Moses in some kind of dream or Divine film footage.
God spoke directly with Adam!
I believe part of his briefing package included a "Word for Word"
explanation of the 5-days that preceded his own Creation.
The rest of early Genesis was recorded by Adam as the world's
first Diary. These sacred documents were Divinely guarded as
they were pasted down from patriarch to patriarch until they
reached Moses for compilation.

Bret* 2010

He should have kept his mouth shut, as he has just dug another DEEP hole for himself.
I refer to the email below this, and the vast array of doubts and questions that Lee places with the genealogies, ages, etc. that the young earth Biblical Creationists believe spans a mere few thousand years.
[Start sarcasm]
However, everybody is to believe Lee and his scientific (extra-Biblical) sources, in knowing pretty well what happened when and where over millions and billions of years.
I really liked the fact how Lee refers to Moses "not being there", but conveniently forgets that no people at all were present during the eons of time he proposes.
[Start increased sarcasm]
Sorry Lee that we simpletons read the Bible and believe what it says, do not need any imaginary people to cover thousand and thousands of years that we don't exist.
Sorry that we lack the faith to believe what (so often secular) scientists claim has happened over thousands of millennia, even though they weren't there, as opposed to believing what happened during a few millennia revealed by God who WAS there.
[End (increased) sarcasm]

ANYONE please pay attention.
If you did not realise before, this really shows that the Bible is NOT the highest authority for Lee.
I suspect Lee will be upset with me for saying this, even though he professes that the Bible IS.
Sorry Lee, your email below, and so many others, show that you may talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
You say you believe the Bible, but so many of your posts show that your allegiance really lies elsewhere.
And THAT is the argument I want to win.
You are completely entitled to believe whatever you want. I disagree with your views, but you are entitled to them.
However, to claim that the Bible is your authority, but actually believe the opposite, that will not impress anyone, apart from maybe those that are extremely gullible.
And I think you have found that Bret and I as representing the YE team are NOT.

To even state that errors would have sneaked in due to verbal passing on of information is a lame argument I have so far only heard from non-Christians.
You were right in anticipating this reaction, because, quite frankly, in my opinion, it is shameful for an supposedly informed man as yourself to suggest that.
Do you not see you undermine Biblical authority? (not that you think the Bible has much authority, but what belief you did have in the Bible you have just undermined and any atheist would love you for destroying your own foundations)

Oh, and for what it's worth.
I think that those passages with "these are the generations of" may very well be penned down by patriarchs, and those archives handed down, until the final editor (Moses) collected them all, and combined them, and perhaps added some of his own notes.

Boy oh boy.
I am not sure if I need to be angry or sad here.
It breaks my heart to see a brother so openly question God's Word.
If we cannot trust these genealogy numbers, can we trust anything else in the Scriptures?
You have just opened the door to liberalism and basically put the rest of Scripture on quick-sand.
You may not like me saying this, but trust me, any lawyer on the opposing team would nail you down after making statements like that and rip you to shreds.

Feel free to yell at me, call me whatever you like Lee.
But think about what I (in my direct [blunt] way) am trying to explain.

The argument is simple, and it is this (and this goes out to everyone):

IS THE BIBLE YOUR AUTHORITY IN INTERPRETING SCIENCE, OR IS SCIENCE YOUR AUTHORITY TO INTERPRETING THE BIBLE?

Now think.
There is only really one correct answer, isn't there? (yeah, it should be the first bit)
If you say it is the first bit:
-Do YOU really believe that?
-Do you think you could convince the Judge?

Bret ,

Weren't you telling us in an earlier post that you though Adam wrote Genesis?  I can't see how you believe the graphic is correct.   If you believe the graphic is true, how would he know the names and stories of people living after he died over a thousand years later? Or have you changed this view about Adam being the author of Genesis or possibly just the first two chapters? Did he also invent writing as well.? 

Here is my view on the chronology in Genesis 5 & 11. 

In keeping with your stated view and our common view that begetteth and Son may include one or many generations (based on many other Bible lists that also have missed generations), I think it would be accurate and appropriate to replace the 'son' in Luke 3 with the more modern term 'descendent', as intended by the author, and the term 'begetting' with 'fathering an ancestor of'' and the term 'begetteth' with 'fathered an ancestor of' or 'fathered' as suitable to the passage. An example then of the YLT version would read the following way if the more appropriate words were substituted:

Luke 3:36 the descendent of Salah, the descendent of Cainan, the descendent of Arphaxad, the descendent of Shem, the descendent of Noah, the descendent of Lamech,...

Genesis 11:12 And Arphaxad hath lived five and thirty years, and fathered an ancestor of Salah. 13 And Arphaxad liveth after his fathering sn ancestor of Salah four hundred and three years, and fathered other sons and daughters...

Based on this more legitimate wording for 'begetteth' or 'son', the conflict with science and YE chronology disappears!  The passages could not be used for generating an exact chronology. They would provide a rough lineage instead of a trap for the uneducated to fall prey.    

You see I, as well as others, believe there is a second option to the interpretation of the Hebrew text: that the number applies to an ancient relative of the person listed and this ancient relative is unnamed. This interpretation would be consistent with other lists in the Bible which were never intended to be complete but used to mention noteable Hebrew ancestors in the lineage of Abraham.  In each case these patriarchs lived long lives. Notice that no one living a short life is mentioned in the list. 

Are we to expect, in a complete list of this series, that no one died young or was killed with so many evil humans and wild beasts running around. With people like Cain around very early to God wiping out the evil humans in Noah's era, it does not seem reasonable that every descendent from Adam to Abraham would have an extremely long life.    

The other possibiity, that I'm reluctant to mention as I anticipate the YE reaction, is that the numbers were pieced together verbally from stories passed on generation to generation until Hebrews in Moses era wrote the first Hebrew texts. While trying to collect and record accurate information about earlier generations, errors still possibly occurred in verbally passing along and later translating the ancient records over several thousand years.  Have you ever played the telephone game and observed how quickly the story loses accuracy. How could a complete history be known by the first writers as they could only be witnesses to verbal stories passed down through many earlier generations. They weren't there when the earlier births occurred.  These numbers and ancestry lists were based on pictograph records and story telling around the campfires remembered over thousands of years before writing was invented. Do you know your own complete family history even twenty generations back and could you trace the chronology back accurately through  each generation? I doubt it, even in our modern times with all the written records available. Most families can't for more than a few generations. Do you really expect Stu and I to believe that the exact number of years are known between Adam and Abraham based on the verbaly passed down stories, human memory, and the uncertainty of these records over thousands of years. 

We also have the uncertainty of knowing the complete list of ancestors to contend with and how long each lasted in a violent era of man. These early writers had to certainly be aware of the incompleteness and uncertainty of these records. I, at least, am confident that these author's intention was not an exact chronology but do the best they could to document the known ancestors in Hebrew history. To this end, I believe their intent was to document the ages of these key members and birth ages of their ancestors; not the age of the begetter when a distant but important descendant was born.    

I hope this response answers any final questions you may have on my views about the lack of credulity that your interpretation of Ge 5 & 11 has for me.  I also don't believe the truth and inerrancy of the Bible rests with your interpretation. It is disturbing to me that you believe the trust of scripture hinges on your rigid chronology, if anything, your rigid views on chronology destroys the credibility of Christianity because if so gravely conflicts with so much other tested evidence of old age. The problem is your forced interpretation that you push on others while knowing of and admitting incomplete geneology lists while disregarding the difficulties in collecting and maintaining accurate records of lifetimes and birthyears for all generations through ancient periods before writing was invented. I hope you will come to somehow understand this. 

Lee        

This should be FUN !!!

But 1st ... I think that I would (personally) prefer to use slightly different terms to
describe our different methods of calculation!

I will be referring to our stance as (FLA) "Fixed Linear Addition"!

I will refer to Stu & Lee's stance as (PNM) "Progressive New Math"!
(similar to Calculus ... by using irrational & imaginary numbers)

We must try to always remember that the written word comes across dry (without emotion)!
We've all read things before that we thought were funny ... but that ONLY occurs when
you agree with the author's point-of-view!
My point being ... that much of our attempts at humor end up falling on deaf ears!
Often ... we even feel insulted or attacked ... because we totally missed the joke!
So ... let's relax ... enjoy the holiday spirit ... and treat every perceived poke-in-the-eye
as being tongue-in-cheek ... because it most likely was meant to be taken that way!
Smile! ... It's Christmas !!!


Bret* 2010

Hi there

I did not really think you needed a calculator, lol.


I like how you define our "terms and conditions".
However, I still have a problem with yours:
A+B+....+C+...+D=2300+?

If the Bible says: "it is 130 years from A to C" (for example) what difference does it even make what there is in-between A and C.
Sorry, but I cannot comprehend that if the distance between LA and San Diego is given (120 miles), it does not matter how many villages, towns and cities you build in-between, the distance remains the same. (leaving plate tectonics and earthquakes and the like out of it!)

Please please please explain to me how you want to stretch that distance then...
Again, going by the Hebrew language I would be OK with adding several names on the dots in your formula above, but if A to C is a given distance (in time) it does not make one hoot of a difference if you add NO names, 1 name, 2 generations, a whole bunch of generations...

Lucien

Let's just concentrate on the 2300 years from the Bible for now. We can get back to yom, OE, billions of years, the flood, etc. later. But the 2300 years is the hurdle at this point (BTW, thanks Lucien but I won't need a calculator. I did it on my fingers and I had Bret's chart to help me )

I'll be calling your position "closed genealogy" where the numbers given as ages from Adam on (A,B, C, D, etc)=2300 years, and there are no unknown gaps in between the addends. Therefore A+B+C+D+etc=2300.

I'll be calling my thesis "open genealogy" where there are gaps between the genealogies of unknown length and on the order of thousands (not millions) of years in length. Therefore A+B+....+C+...+D=2300+?

Let the reasoning begin!

Stu ...

I warned you guys that we were heading into a Hot-Water Topic ...
when the magnitude & the timing of the Flood became center stage!
And ... if I've come across as too aggressive or grandiloquent? ... I apologize!
I can agree with you that nobody seems open or motivated to change their personal stance!
And ... I am here to Clearly defend my position (with or without gloves)... and at the
same time ... I'm asking the OE defenders to Clearly explain how they square their
beliefs with our mutually agreed upon (Ultimate) Standard ... "The Bible" !!!

If a non-believer were to ask me if it was possible to believe in the Bible ...
and to believe that the Universe is billions of years old ... at the same time?
After clearly stating that I personally don't believe that that is necessary ...
I want to be able to give this person an answer that sounds rational ... but does NOT
undermine the clarity and infallibility of God's Word !!!

Even though I totally disagree with it! ... I can understand the argument for the
secondary definition of the Hebrew word for "Day"!

But ... I still do NOT understand how I could tell someone that the ~2300 years from
Adam to Joseph could be ANY other length of time ... than the stated ~2300 years ???

I could explain to them about the possibility of missing names & generations in this
Genesis genealogy ... but have ZERO (logical) answers for changing the number!

Of course ... we're ALL trying to WIN our arguments here!
But ... we're also trying to understand how Christians can hold to alternative views
about MAJOR parts of God's Perfect Infallible Word ???
Teaching & Learning until the day He returns!


Bret* 2010

Now we have established that Adam was 130 when Seth was 0 (i.e. born),
shall we move on to how old Seth was when Enos arrived into this world?

(let's see if we can pick up the pace and keep your calculators at hand)

I am participating to understand another's point of view; and to give answers from my perspective to questions such as Bret posed. I'm not here to engage in name calling nor to make and win an argument. If you want to proceed along those lines then I'll continue to participate. Otherwise I have other things to do.

The answer to Lucien's question is that from the NASB I read in Gen 5:3-4 that Adam became the sexual biological father of Seth when he was 130 years old, and that he had other sons and daughters.

Like Bret I refer to multiple translations as appropriate: the standard ones -- NASB, NIV, ESV, KJV, as well as the Tanakh (Hebrew), New American Bible (Catholic) and NWT (JW).

But let's not get distracted.
The question is, no matter what translation you use, does the text mean what it says?

Let's not forget the main question under discussion at the moment:
How old was Adam when his descendant (to the Xth generation) Seth was born?
Is it:
A) 130 years
B) 1,300 years
C) 13,000 years
D) none of the above


Lucien

My I ask each of you to state your preferred Bible Translation?
And ... could you briefly explain why you like it best?

I personally own about a dozen different Translations myself ...
including a 5-volume Transliterated Bible which is quite tedious to use!
(I also have a copy of the "New Worlds Translation" used by JW's ... and NOT for sell anywhere!)
This is not to brag ... but to show that I've done some homework in this area!

I use them all ... and make sure to cite each Translation used when posting quotes!
I do have a personal preference ... and some sound reasoning for choosing it!
I will Post my preference last ... after everyone else ... as to not influence your choice!


Bret* 2010

Stu ...

With all due respect! ... these 2 issues are perpendicular ... NOT parallel !!!
Lucien & I BOTH agree with you about adding in the extra (missing) generations!
The Bible clearly says that Adam was 130 YEARS old when Seth was born ... right?
Since men are fertile by the age of 13 ... you could squeeze 9-extra generations in ...
if that makes you feel better ... right?
But here's my question to you:

HOW OLD WAS ADAM WHEN SETH WAS BORN ???

If your answer is ANYTHING other that 130 years ... then we're ALL doomed !!!
The critics of the Bible have finally won the battle ... and the Bible is TRASH !!!

WHY DID GOD SAY 130-YEARS ... IF THIS IS NOT CORRECT ???

Remember this! ... God is the GREATEST communicator EVER !!!
SATAN ... is the father of ALL lies, deception, and confusion !!!


Bret* 2010

Stu


your lack of understanding of logic is astounding.
I assume nothing, as it is written in God's Word. I just read what God revealed. Only assumption I make that you can accuse me of (in this debate) is that God knows what He is talking about and is able to reveal things to human kind.
If anyone is assuming anything, it is you and Lee, who feel the need to add unmentioned people (AND years) because it is needed to account for years that are required by your science, which in fact is based upon uniformitarian assumptions.
As Bret and I have pointed out numerous times, you and Lee let outside sources determine how to interpret the Biblical text (no matter how many brain gymnastics are required), as opposed to let Scriptures determine how science should be interpreted.

Here we go, once again:
Adam was father (or if you like, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc) of Seth and Adam was 130 when Seth arrived.
Seth was father (or if you like, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc) of Enos and Seth was 105 when Seth arrived.
And so on.

By adding the words GRANDfather and/or GREAT-GRANDfather and/or etc, I have done away with what you say I am assuming (that there are no gaps). I have just ADDED some missing people (for your sake), and yet you still fail to see that I am extremely generous to you by allowing the GRANDfather and GREAT-GRANDfather (etc) insertions.

Did you understand my LA-SD analogy?


Lucien

Lucien,

Your reasoning is circular. Your logic works only if you assume that there are no gaps in the biblical chronologies. I have already shown that there are gaps, so my conclusion stands. There were plenty of other lineages of people of biblical unimportance between the bars on Bret's chart.

BTW -- my data too comes from the Bible -- a non-liberal translation (NASB).

Stu

From the Bible:
Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.


Liberal translations:

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a GRANDson in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a GREATGRANDson in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a GREATGREATGRANDson in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.


Do you see that talking about what "begat" can also mean does NOT change the argument?
People may add the BOLD parts, but the underlined remains the same, no matter how many people you wish to squeeze in.

Bret -- I commend you on your open mindedness to investigate this topic and to ask the tough questions. The answer is straightforward. First off, the numbers are right (to reiterate for Lucien's sake) -- and Bret, it is not necessary to "sell me on the security and sanctify of God's Word," I've been there for 31 years. It's the YE interpretation of the text that is wrong.

YEers are forcing the Bible to say something it is not saying when it comes to these genealogical lists. When the text says "A lived so many years and became the father of B," the context determines what the Bible means. Sometimes it means that "A was the sexual biological father of son B," and sometimes it means (especially in these genealogical lists which are given for purposes other than sexual biology) that "A was the father of a particular lineage that started with son B." This is not playing with the text -- it is self evident from the context.

We've already established that the term "the son of" in biblical genealogies depends on context. It can mean, in addition to being "the sexual biological son of," "the grandson of," or "the great grandson of," or "the great, great grandson of," etc. That is, "the end of the lineage," e.g. Joseph, "the (great, great, great .... grandson of David." In reverse, the same thing is true, "the father of" can mean, "the grandfather of," or "the great grandfather of," or "the great, great grandfather of," etc. That is, "the beginning of the lineage," e.g. David, "the great, great, great .... grandfather of Joseph.)

Lee

As an FYI, I too have heard of ages of the earth up to 12,000 (but don't think i have heard up to 15,000 before).


By the way, is anyone else having trouble with the links to the various pages on our forum.
When I open up the site, it usually starts about 20 pages higher than the current one.
Up to recent, i simply clicked on page 1 and would be taken there, but for a few days now, the link does not work and I have to "click my way down"...


Lucien

Lee ...

That's actually a good (and fair) question to ask!
I honestly have been unable to get a clear & solid answer for this myself!
Even though the Young Earth Creationist position is immensely more unified than the
panoply of Old Earth positions out there ... we are NOT monolithic!
Since I don't know of any YE's that believe the Bible contains ANY errors ...
(Factual or Numerical)
The only logical conclusion that I can deduce ... must be derived from a variance in
extra-Biblical & Historical documents used to pin down the dates of events referenced
in the Bible AFTER THE DEATH OF JOSEPH (the son of Jacob) !!?
The period (what I believe to be ~1700 years) from Jacob's son "Joseph" to the
Mary & Joseph "Joseph"... is NOT numerically linked by Scripture like the first
~2300 years of Man's existence ... that is CLEARLY set in stone!
This variance seems to be overly generous (in my opinion) as to allow for the possible
inaccuracies that are commonplace when dealing with non-Biblical documents!

There! ... I answered your question!
Now! ... can you PLEASE answer mine?

How can YOU expand those first 2300 years into ANY number other than what God has stated
without claiming that the Bible is in error?
If YOU can NOT give me a CLEAR answer to this question in your next Post? ...
then I will have to conclude that there is NO answer to your OE conundrum!


Bret* 2010

Lee

Two notes:
1) I do not think there are errorS, but just the one error (singular): Cainan in Luke 3 (not found in the OT).

2) Also, please exactly where did you get the idea that I "believe that there are errors in the numbers in the Bible".
I thought it was clear i believe the numbers are correct.
Maybe I did not make it clear enough, but I was actually asking you and Stu if you believed the numbers were wrong (only about 4 times or so, but maybe you missed it).


Lucien

Bret,

I am curious why the other YEs believe the date of Adams creation might be as old as 15 thousand years ago. Don't they believe in a complete listing and accurate numbers like you and Lucien? How do they make an acceptable case for longer than 6000 years ago. I am also curious if they might believe that there could be copyist errors in the numbers like Lucien believes there are in the name lists? Do some of the YEs believe that there are errors in the numbers in the Bible like Lucien does with the names listed. Could some of the problem result from poor translation of the original language as it changed over thousands of years and pieced together records by the Hebrew tribes? You seem so sure of your interpretations of the English text translated from Adam's and other patriarch's writings over thousands of years after Adam had died according to your chart.

Lee

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.


OK, if we have to go one step at a time, then let's do so.


Stu, Lee and Bret. We see a clear time (distance) between Adam and Seth.
We all KNOW that Cain and Able lived before Seth, but this is irrelevant, as the time from Adam to Seth is clearly mentioned. 130 years.
Let's for the sake of argument assume that besides Cain and Able, Adam had more sons & daughters BEFORE Seth.
How would that change the 130 years?
Tell me!
How?
You guys want to stretch the time-line, therefore, you guys explain how the 130 years (age of Adam when he had Seth) would increase.

I am really curious how you do it.

Dear Bret.

I think the only reason Lee and Stu will believe Google maps which states that LA to SD is 120 miles, is that science can prove it. Or they have driven it themselves (I presume) and came to the same conclusion.
The fact that I have not mentioned places like Carlsbad, or San Clemente, in this case does not change their mind about the total distance, because from LA to SD remains the same.
Both Stu and Lee keep talking about other distances, and how places in between are not mentioned, all of which is completely irrelevant, when a distance is mentioned from A to B. Stu wants a closed distance, from beginning point to endpoint, and says that adding the distances between the towns on the journey is not a valid method of coming to the total distance. Utter rubbish. In fact, most maps will have small distance indications (between small towns), which if you add them up should total the big distance (between the two major cities).
Today, we can check those numbers on the maps, by going there and seeing for ourselves. We trust empirical science like that. it is repeatable. I can do it too, so can you.
But because Lee, Stu, Ross, Green and others completely ignore that God has given fixed points on the curve, and we allegedly trust those numbers are correct (right?), they keep going on about supposed missing people that are not mentioned. You can talk about genealogies with people missing until your blue in the face guys, but it won't change a thing.
Young Earthers like myself have admitted that interpolation would be possible according to the Hebrew word, but it would not change the shape of the curve (you just get more dots on the same curve).
What Stu and Lee are doing is stretching the curve, which is unwarranted if using the Biblical text.
I cannot comprehend that people who do this are not seeing what they are doing. In my opinion they are wilfully ignorant, thick, deceiving, or simply not as smart as I had credited them and would not get a job in any accountant office, because they cannot even add up some numbers.
The ONLY ways that I can see to modify the lineage to whatever you like is by:
A) admitting that the numbers given are wrong
B) admitting that the names given are wrong

Bret,
I think your chart is great and reflects what the Bible says. You could draw more people in the chart in parallel, but stretching the graph horizontally is not allowed, because you would have to change the Biblical text.
Another chart, with verses can be found on this link:
http://creation.com/compromising-chaplain-castigates-creation-2
The communications on this link are actually quite good. Note the contradiction between bullet 10 and 11. I pointed this out, but they have not published my comment yet.
PS, some people on the link above wrote that CMI was maybe a bit to harsh and un-Christ-like.
I get weary of these comments.
Do we forget that Jesus threw over the market stalls in the temple area, possibly breaking some furniture and merchandise? Do we forget how He sometimes spoke to the Jews ("You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?" and "You belong to your father, the devil")? Heavy stuff!