• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Where does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old?

R

RobertBoyce

New member
First you must realize that these verses were written to people who still believed the earth was flat. If you were to use the true time span of these events people would walk disbelieving all of it. Instead it was put in a timeline that one at the time could understand. On the sixth day was an analogy of time and not intended to represent the true time span.

Having said the above this debate does create dialog between strangers which is good, on this the morning of the eighth day
And so it was and so it will be; As I see it
:)-
 
R

RobertBoyce

New member
The myth of the flat Earth is a modern misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat rather than spherical.

The earliest documentation of a spherical Earth comes from the ancient Greeks (5th century BC). Since the 600s AD, .,,,,,.,and by the Early Middle Ages (700–1500 AD), virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
:)-
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
RobertBoyce said:
The myth of the flat Earth is a modern misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat rather than spherical.

The earliest documentation of a spherical Earth comes from the ancient Greeks (5th century BC). Since the 600s AD, .,,,,,.,and by the Early Middle Ages (700–1500 AD), virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
:)-
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is the best that you can do? :rotfl:
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Right Divider said:
He made the claim that they believed that the earth was flat ... let him or you prove that.

Your are such a :troll:
Click to expand...

You claimed it was a myth. Enlighten us. the question is in 1000 +/- BCE what did the people in the Middle East believe or understand about the shape of the earth? Maybe no one knows, maybe they did not care, maybe because they were focused on a small sliver of the earth they were clueless but it did not matter. If you dont know the answer, just say so.
But you should at least know when Genesis was written.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Jonahdog said:
You claimed it was a myth. Enlighten us. the question is in 1000 +/- BCE what did the people in the Middle East believe or understand about the shape of the earth? Maybe no one knows, maybe they did not care, maybe because they were focused on a small sliver of the earth they were clueless but it did not matter. If you dont know the answer, just say so.
But you should at least know when Genesis was written.
Click to expand...
Again... I'll wait for proof from you that "those old people believed that the earth was flat".

Genesis was written a long time ago...
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Jonahdog said:
And despite the threat that I would be banned, those who post here claiming Biblical inerrancy and all that entails, have seen the evidence and simply repeating it ad nauseum is not likely to be of any effect.
Click to expand...

Those who post here claiming Biblical inerrancy and all that entails have seen you (and your fellow Darwin cheerleaders) repeating ad nauseum the word, "evidence". We get it: you can write the word, "evidence", and you like to write it. Yay. The trick (for which you've clearly not got a knack) is actually meaning something by it.

What effect ought whatever you call "evidence" have on those who post here claiming Biblical inerrancy, etc.?

What effect does whatever you call "evidence" have on you?
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
7djengo7 said:
Please try to answer the question that is the title of this thread, or discontinue posting in this thread. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Sure, it doesn't, nor does it teach that it's thousands either. Please don't accuse me of stonewalling against any of your questions or trolling after this in future either.

:e4e:
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain said:
Sure, it doesn't,
Click to expand...

True. The Bible does not literally teach that the earth is billions of years old, and the Bible does not non-literally (allegorically) teach that the earth is billions of years old.

That, of course, is not your first post in this thread, but it is your first post in this thread that is not trolling spam, that is not irrelevant to this thread. Why could you not answer the question earlier, like in your first post in this thread? Why did you stonewall against it until now?

Arthur Brain said:
It's quite easy to see allegory and poetic narrative in the Genesis account.
Click to expand...

Please tell us what, according to you, Genesis 5 allegorically and/or poeticallyteaches. For instance, v. 5 literally teaches that "all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." What allegory and poetic narrative would you say is quite easy to see in that verse, Professor?

Arthur Brain said:
nor does it teach that it's thousands either.
Click to expand...

False.

But, according to you--being the lying, God-hating Bible-despiser you are--the Bible doesn't teach anything, whatsoever. According to you, Genesis is meaningless. No? Then stop merely chanting over and over that Genesis is "allegory", and try backing up your chant by telling us exactly what (if anything) you think is being taught in Genesis. You've already been requested to do this, and so far, you've stonewalled against all such requests.

Arthur Brain said:
Please don't accuse me of stonewalling against any of your questions or trolling after this in future either.

:e4e:
Click to expand...

Please don't imagine that I will not continue to tell the truth about your lying and stonewalling, and about your trolling, and the fact that you are a God-hating Bible-despiser.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
7djengo7 said:
True. The Bible does not literally teach that the earth is billions of years old, and the Bible does not non-literally (allegorically) teach that the earth is billions of years old.

That, of course, is not your first post in this thread, but it is your first post in this thread that is not trolling spam, that is not irrelevant to this thread. Why could you not answer the question earlier, like in your first post in this thread? Why did you stonewall against it until now?



Please tell us what, according to you, Genesis 5 allegorically and/or poeticallyteaches. For instance, v. 5 literally teaches that "all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." What allegory and poetic narrative would you say is quite easy to see in that verse, Professor?



False.

But, according to you--being the lying, God-hating Bible-despiser you are--the Bible doesn't teach anything, whatsoever. According to you, Genesis is meaningless. No? Then stop merely chanting over and over that Genesis is "allegory", and try backing up your chant by telling us exactly what (if anything) you think is being taught in Genesis. You've already been requested to do this, and so far, you've stonewalled against all such requests.



Please don't imagine that I will not continue to tell the truth about your lying and stonewalling, and about your trolling, and the fact that you are a God-hating Bible-despiser.
Click to expand...

You don't tell the truth, you troll about and act like an adolescent who isn't allowed out after six o clock on a school night. You've been answered time and again from everybody you throw this tired shtick at. Tiresome beyond words and especially in the current climate with what's going on. So, No thanks, grow up, learn to write without tortured prose (seriously, it's appalling) and stay safe!

:cheers:
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain said:
Conservapedia....is entertaining as all get out on occasion...
Click to expand...

When people get your goat by opposing the shameful irrationality that constitutes your worldview as a Darwin cheerleader, you--in your irrational, reactive anger--half the time say they are entertaining, and half the time say they are boring and not fun at parties. And both of these opposites you somehow intend as pejoratives. You're one confused, indecisive chap. Which is it? Entertaining or boring?
🎭​
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
7djengo7 said:
Please tell us what, according to you, Genesis 5 allegorically and/or poeticallyteaches. For instance, v. 5 literally teaches that "all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." What allegory and poetic narrative would you say is quite easy to see in that verse, Professor?
Click to expand...
Arthur Brain said:
<NO ANSWER>
Click to expand...

So you don't think there is allegory and poetic narrative in Genesis 5:5, eh? I agree with you that there isn't.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
7djengo7 said:
When people get your goat by opposing the shameful irrationality that constitutes your worldview as a Darwin cheerleader, you--in your irrational, reactive anger--half the time say they are entertaining, and half the time say that they are boring and not fun at parties. And both of these opposites you somehow intend as pejoratives. You're one confused, indecisive chap. Which is it? Entertaining or boring?
🎭​
Click to expand...

Oh, Conservapedia is inadvertently entertaining as anything, it really is. I've typed in pretty much neutral topics on it to get a paragraphs worth of comment where on Wiki it's absolutely in depth.

Well, not entirely neutral on this occasion as this has been a favourite piece of music for decades now but not one that's that controversial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring

https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Rite_of_Spring

Now, the second is laughable, it really is just on a musical level alone. But it's still entertaining!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top