Mazaje, please do not be misled by Kolaxy.

He wrote -

kolaxy:

Exodus 20:11

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Remember that the activity referred to here is God's activity. Thus the "days" referred to are such periods as would be days for a transcendental being like God. We are made to understand even from the Bible that in the view of God, a thousand earth-years may be as a single day. I do not believe that this refers specifically to 1000 years on earth, but is simply metaphorical for a stupendously long period. An era, if you like. Personally, i believe that God is entirely timeless and so the "days" in question are mere parametres for recording divine activity over very long periods of time in such a manner as to be understood by humans.

That's the proper understanding.

The sabbath being on the sixth human day, is merely a human reflection of what the divine had done. Much as man himself is said to be a small reflection of God, or made in the "image and likeness" of God.

So Kolaxy - understand clearly - nothing in the bible suggests that the Earth is 6000 years old.

It is many millions of years old, and this is a fact.

Deep Sight:

Mazaje, please do not be misled by Kolaxy.

He wrote -

Remember that the activity referred to here is God's activity. Thus the "days" referred to are such periods as would be days for a transcendental being like God. We are made to understand even from the Bible that in the view of God, a thousand earth-years may be as a single day. I do not believe that this refers specifically to 1000 years on earth, but is simply metaphorical for a stupendously long period. An era, if you like. Personally, i believe that God is entirely timeless and so the "days" in question are mere parametres for recording divine activity over very long periods of time in such a manner as to be understood by humans.

That's the proper understanding.



The sabbath being on the sixth human day, is merely a human reflection of what the divine had done. Much as man himself is said to be a small reflection of God, or made in the "image and likeness" of God.

So Kolaxy - understand clearly - nothing in the bible suggests that the Earth is 6000 years old.

It is many millions of years old, and this is a fact.

If  I may ask you, how do you know that the earth is millions of years old or billions and not trillions?

Billions & Trillions are multiplications of millions, so the word "millions" still captures it.

Would i be wrong to call Mike Adenuga a millionaire?

@DeepSight:

Deep Sight:

Remember that the activity referred to here is God's activity. Thus the "days" referred to are such periods as would be days for a transcendental being like God. We are made to understand even from the Bible that in the view of God, a thousand earth-years may be as a single day. I do not believe that this refers specifically to 1000 years on earth, but is simply metaphorical for a stupendously long period. An era, if you like. Personally, i believe that God is entirely timeless and so the "days" in question are mere parametres for recording divine activity over very long periods of time in such a manner as to be understood by humans.

That's the proper understanding.

The sabbath being on the sixth human day, is merely a human reflection of what the divine had done. Much as man himself is said to be a small reflection of God, or made in the "image and likeness" of God.

So Kolaxy - understand clearly - nothing in the bible suggests that the Earth is 6000 years old.

It is many millions of years old, and this is a fact.

I agree with that, which is what I also meant when I said man's means of measurement of time is essentially flawed: one can only measure time between two references of time. How do you measure time, then, when the upper limit is unbounded above?

@Kolaxy: I don't think man may be able to put a number to the age of the earth, but it is definitely greater than 6000 years. Permit my analogy, but it's like a caged bird trying to determine the size of the house in which it lives. As much as it may estimate the size of the room in which it is caged, the size of the house is an entirely different matter. Man cannot exist in time, and also attempt to use that same medium of time to estimate the age of the world in which he exists.

mavenbox:

@DeepSight:
I agree with that, which is what I also meant when I said man's means of measurement of time is essentially flawed: one can only measure time between two references of time. How do you measure time, then, when the upper limit is unbounded above?

@Kolaxy: I don't think man may be able to put a number to the age of the earth, but it is definitely greater than 6000 years. Permit my analogy, but it's like a caged bird trying to determine the size of the house in which it lives. As much as it may estimate the size of the room in which it is caged, the size of the house is an entirely different matter. Man cannot exist in time, and also attempt to use that same medium of time to estimate the age of the world in which he exists.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I'm not entirely saying that the earth is exactly 6000years. What I don't agree with is for someone to say the earth is millions or billions of years old?

HOW[b] OLD [/b] is the earth according to the Bible? The following timeline by Theodore Pederson appeared in The Christian News, March 26, 2001, page 18.

HOW OLD is the earth according to the Bible? The following timeline by Theodore Pederson appeared in The Christian News, March 26, 2001, page 18.
How old is the earth?

If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”
If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

If not, then when?
Although many people don't accept the Bible's timeline of history, they have difficulty deciding exactly when to start disagreeing with it.
• Was Jesus Christ real? The Bible says he was, and no serious historian doubts it.
• Was King David real? The Bible says he was. Again, there is no reason to doubt it.
• Was Abraham real? The Bible says he was. There seems no reason to doubt this either.
• Was Enoch real? The Bible says he was. There is no reason to think the Bible has suddenly lapsed into fiction when the other people were genuine historical figures.
• Was Adam real? Well, Enoch was a son of Cain, who was a son of Adam. So if Enoch was real there is no reason to think that his father Cain wasn't, or that his grandfather Adam wasn't. They were only two generations away.
And Adam was the first man, created in the first week of the earth's existence.

According to the Bible, he lived about 6000 years ago. So according to the Bible, the world also is about 6000 years old.
Ussher's calculation
Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), calculated a similar date.

In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.

Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.

http://creationtips.com/earthsage.html

These wiki articles are  simplified versions of how scientists determine the appproximate age of the the universe as well as the earth. The information may be helpful to discussants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

@kolaxy: Referring to your post above, see this:

Gen 2:16  And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
Gen 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

What did it mean when God said Adam will surely die? I put it to you that, besides an eternal separation from God, it meant he would start aging,  i.e. time as an element will have the pleasure of acting on him, rather than the aeonian experience he was used to in the ageless primeval realm, the Garden of Eden, a spiritual location where Adam and Eve were. In the Garden of Eden, time was not of consequence

As such, the day Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they started aging. Until they died. So, I accept that from the day they ate the fruit till today, is 6000 years. But man himself is not 6000 years old (since he existed before he sinned), let alone the earth itself!

Now tell me two things by the Biblical account:
1. How much time passed in the Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate the forbidden fruit? This will tell us how old Adam was when he left the Garden of Eden. Don't tell me 130 years, because that's not what the Bible says in Gen 5:3 (it says Adam gave birth to Seth AFTER 130 years of leaving the Garden)
2. How much time passed AFTER the earth was created but BEFORE the first man (not Adam, but even if you want to argue for Adam it's fine) was created by God? Did time even exist before man was created? Did time even have our assumed meaning prior to the existence of mankind?

Thus, I say if T1 is the answer to question 1 and T2 either tends to infinity, or it is the answer to question 2, then

the age of man is T1 + 6000 year[/b]s and
[b]the age of the earth is the sum of three quantities: T1 + T2 + 6000 years.

What do you think?

KunleOshob:

The bible never stated that Adam is the first man, go and read you bible again. Infact there are several hints of a pre-Adamic man in the book of genesis. Man was created in Genesis 1: 26-27, whilst Adam was created Genesis 2:7-19

This is where you will know those who read, believe and obey God's Word as their final authority and those who believe in fallen man's faulty assumptions.  This is what Paul had to say about the first man:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" -- Romans 5:12

We also read in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit"

Adam is a key figure in Scripture.  He is described as the first Adam, the one who brought sin into the world.  He made it necessary for Jesus, the last Adam, to atone for all humans, and then rise from the grave with the promise of complete redemption for fallen man and fallen creation.  If Adam was just a myth as some here believe, we would not be able to fully understand the work of Jesus.

If Adam and Eve were not real, then we ought to doubt whether their children were real too, and their children and so on, and then we ought to doubt the first 11 chapters of Genesis as many are doing here, and so on.  All the genealogies accept Adam as being a literal person, so their children Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:9,10; Luke 11:50,51) must be real too.  Jesus was "descended" from Adam, and it is not possible to be descended from a myth.

the purpose of this post was to find out what dating method used by YEC was reliable and damn accurate not be bored to death by theology.

[/quote]

[quote]Don't tell me 130 years, because that's not what the Bible says in Gen 5:3 (it says Adam gave birth to Seth AFTER 130 years of leaving the Garden)2. How much time passed AFTER the earth was created but BEFORE the first man (not Adam,[color=#990000][/color]

I can't but laugh at the above red bolded words,

^^^^^
Well, comedy was not my intent. Maybe I was trying too hard to make you see my point. Cheers.

kolaxy:

I can't but laugh at the above red bolded words,

Yes, you can only laugh cos your grey matter is not compound enough to see the excellent thinking contained in Mavenbox's surmise.

Kay 17:

the purpose of this post was to find out what dating method used by YEC was reliable and damn accurate not be bored to death by theology.

My thoughts exactly. . . . .

A biblical creationist who believes the record in the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God (Psalm 78:5; 2 Tim.3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:19-17), will come to different conclusions than an atheist who rejects the Bible.  Willful denial of God’s Word (2 Peter 3:3–7) lies at the root of many disputes over historical science.

Ken Ham a biblical creationist puts it succintly by saying: Many people think the Bible is just a book about religion or salvation.  It is much more than this.  The Bible is the History Book of the Universe and tells us the future destiny of the universe as well.  It gives us an account of when time began, the main events of history, such as the entrance of sin and death into the world, the time when the whole surface of the globe was destroyed by water, the giving of different languages at the Tower of Babel, the account of the Son of God coming as a man, His death and Resurrection, and the new heavens and earth to come.

Ultimately, there are only two ways of thinking: starting with the revelation from God (the Bible) as foundational to all thinking (including biology, history, and geology), resulting in a Christian worldview; or starting with man’s beliefs (for example, the evolutionary story) as foundational to all thinking, resulting in a secular worldview.

Most Christians have been indoctrinated through the media and education system to think in a secular way.  They tend to take secular thinking to the Bible, instead of using the Bible to build their thinking (Romans 12:1–2; Ephesians 4:20–24).

The Bible says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10).

If one begins with an evolutionary view of history (for which there were no witnesses or written record), then this way of thinking will be used to explain the evidence that exists in the present. 

But if one begins with the biblical view of history from the written record of an eyewitness (God) to all events of history, then a totally different way of thinking, based on this, will be used to explain the same evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/god-come-from/where-god-come-from

Deep Sight:

Mazaje -

The Garden of Eden is not a mythical place.

But it never existed on this earth. It existed, and exists, within the primordial spiritual realm, the spiritual dimension which is the original home of the human spirit.

And this guy would claim not to be christian, all the while calling their beliefs psychotic. . . . I laugh

OLAADEGBU:


Ken Ham a biblical creationist puts it succintly by saying: Many people think the Bible is just a book about religion or salvation.  It is much more than this.  The Bible is the History Book of the Universe and tells us the future destiny of the universe as well.

According to the bible this is how the earth will end. . . .

Rev 6: 12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red,
6:13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.
Rev 6:14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.
Rev 6:15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains.

According to you bible and its so so stories the stars in the heavens will fall into the earth just as late figs frop from a fig tree when end of everything comes according to the revelation which was "revealed" to one of the writers of the bible. . .Are we really to believe this fiction? Yet you guys desperately hold on to the imaginations of people who know nothing about the sun and stars but still believe that they have a clue with regards to how the earth began and how it will end. . . . .Surely the writers of the bible have demonstrated that they have NO idea of what the sun or stars are, they did not know that the stars are distants suns like ours some even bigger than our sun with planets orbiting them like our own sun and can NEVER fall into the earth. . . . .

kolaxy:

I can't but laugh at the above red bolded words,

I see that you have edited your post. I must make it clear that I am a Christian, and a Bible-believer. The fact that I believe the Bible is what makes me read between the lines, precept upon precept. Now, tell me:

1. How old was Adam when he was created? Was he a helpless baby, requiring the usual nurture like infants do? Was he a young man (in today's respect), agile and full of energy; responsible enough to tend a garden and have a wife, and wise enough to attend to instruction? Or was he a middle-aged man? By today's expression of age in years, would you say he was 12 years? 25 years? 50 years? 100? Or would you say that he was ZERO years old? Herein is that limitation of time as measured by mankind once again. We want to state the age of Adam JUST before he sinned, but because time is measured between two time references and we do not know how old he was when he was made, we cannot truly tell. Or maybe Kolaxy knows?

2. How old was Adam when he left the Garden? this age will be the sum of his BIRTH-AGE (I presume, a timeless quantity, with respect to our human measurement, unless you want to arbitrarily assign him an age) and the amount of time he spent in the garden before sinning. God told Adam that he would (surely) die on the day he eats the fruit (Gen 2:17). And surely, the day they sinned, he and Eve were banished (Gen 3:24) and time started telling on him, he "surely died" (i.e. his future death became an established truth, his days began counting) that moment. Now, the amount of time between their banishment in Gen 3:24 and their operations as men disconnected from God (i.e. their death) in Gen 4:1 is not known, but we see Adam and Eve having children, and the first-mentioned is Cain. At this time, the ages of Adam and Eve are yet unknown.

BUT THE FIRST REFERENCE TO ADAM'S AGE IS IN Gen 5:3

Gen 5:3  And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

The word "lived" there is châyâh חיה

and it means to revive, to keep alive, to recover, to be nourished and preserved. This means Adam kept alive for 130 years BEFORE giving birth to Seth. But how old was he before the clocks started counting?

Gen 5:4  And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Gen 5:5 counts all the years that Adam  châyâh חיה
"lived" and kept alive by summing his 800 post-Seth days with his 130 pre-Seth days. But if Adam had not sinned, he would not have died. So he would not have needed to "keep alive". This is why I believe that in the realms of the Garden of Eden, time was not measured how we now measure time.

If this is so, and time was not measured the same way before and after Eden, then telling me that Adam's X years in Eden + Mankind's Y years after Eden can be summed up together is erroneous. What is the result when you add 3 apples with 4 oranges? Is it 7?

So how can you add time measures when man never existed (to whom time makes meaning, and who is bound by time), to measures of a time when man was present in time, but not AGING to death (I believe this means the time scale may have been distorted after the fall of man, increasing slope and making men age faster), and add that to our current definition of time?

Now, I will not belabour the issue of the pre-Adamic man that you scoff right now, but there is Biblical evidence for it and maybe we may discuss that on another thread (one such is Genesis 2:5 where there was not yet a man to till the ground that God made, making it clear that man already had the role before Adam).

Going further, when Adam had not yet existed and God was the only sentient being, was time also running the very same bound scale of 24 hours, seeing that God is not bound by time?

@mazaje: Are you saying that a distant star or another planet cannot be shaken off course and plummeted into the earth, regardless of the fact that it is larger than this planet, earth?

@mavenbox,

Now, I will not belabour the issue of the pre-Adamic man that you scoff right now, but there is Biblical evidence for it and maybe we may discuss that on another thread (one such is Genesis 2:5 where there was not yet a man to till the ground that God made, making it clear that man already had the role before Adam).

I don’t mean to mock or ridicule your assertion and I apologize if you feel wronged. However, I’ll like if you could briefly shed more light on the above. Thanks

Sorry,I did modify my post but I didn't change anything.Just changed the colour. Thanks

The Bible says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10).

If one begins with an evolutionary view of history (for which there were no witnesses or written record), then this way of thinking will be used to explain the evidence that exists in the present. 

But if one begins with the biblical view of history from the written record of an eyewitness (God) to all events of history, then a totally different way of thinking, based on this, will be used to explain the same evidence.

Thanks Olaadegbu.

@mavenbox,

1. How old was Adam when he was created? Was he a helpless baby, requiring the usual nurture like infants do? Was he a young man (in today's respect), agile and full of energy; responsible enough to tend a garden and have a wife, and wise enough to attend to instruction? Or was he a middle-aged man? By today's expression of age in years, would you say he was 12 years? 25 years? 50 years? 100? Or would you say that he was ZERO years old? Herein is that limitation of time as measured by mankind once again. We want to state the age of Adam JUST before he sinned, but because time is measured between two time references and we do not know how old he was when he was made, we cannot truly tell. Or maybe Kolaxy knows?

The above is like asking: ‘How old a new born baby is? We start counting the age of a new born baby from the day it was born not how long it has been in the womb. Some babies spent over 9months in the womb while some spent under 9 months in the womb. But averagely, we all know that it’s 9months.

So also the case for Adam. We started counting his age from the day he was created just like a new born baby. Thanks

mavenbox:

@mazaje: Are you saying that a distant star or another planet cannot be shaken off course and plummeted into the earth, regardless of the fact that it is larger than this planet, earth?

Let me help Mazaje here. The simple answer is no!, it is not possible for a distant star to be shaken off its course and plummet into the earth. For a planet, it would be impossible for a planet to escape the gravitational attraction of its parent star and start traveling to our own star.

^^^ Under the known laws and assumptions of physics, that is. . .

Given the vastly unknown and undeciphered mysteries of the universe, i would not be so bold as to positively assert any cosmic event to be "impossible."

Deep Sight:

^^^ Under the known laws and assumptions of physics, that is. . .

Given the vastly unknown and undeciphered mysteries of the universe, i would not be so bold as to positively assert any cosmic event to be "impossible."

Can you explain to us how the stars(Most of which are a hundred or a thousand times bigger than the earth) will fall into the earth? I can't believe that some one just asked that question. Do you really think that the stars will some day fall into the earth, You must be kidding right?

mavenbox:

@mazaje: Are you saying that a distant star or another planet cannot be shaken off course and plummeted into the earth, regardless of the fact that it is larger than this planet, earth?

Let me help out here too, The stars(distant suns) are way way bigger than the earth some of them are even bigger than our own sun which happen to be about a 1000 times bigger than our earth and some of them have planets revolving around them like our sun so how can they fall into the earth? They stars are not just some tiny light bulbs shining in the night sky as the writers of the bible thought. They also are solar systems to other planets. They Can NEVER fall into the earth.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Under the known laws and assumptions of physics, that is. . .

Given the vastly unknown and undeciphered mysteries of the universe, i would not be so bold as to positively assert any cosmic event to be "impossible."

We cannot hide under the unknown to perpetuate all kinds of scientific and even logical fallacies. How can a start  Plummet into a small planet like earth. Even if we suspend the laws of science and allow a star to leave its position in a galaxy ad then venture into our sun's gravitational pull, the combined effects of the gravity and radiations of the two suns would have quite a devastating effects on all the planets, and not a star plummeting into a planet. Our solar system would be termed a binary  star system, and such systems do not allow for stable planets.

Toneyb,

You need to brush up a bit on your astronomy. Our star - The Sun which is an ordinary star is Over I Million times bigger that the earth. Some Red Giants are over 100 times bigger than our own sun.

I am also surprised that some people still choose to believe 21^st century B.C assumptions over 21^st century A.D science, that stars are points in the dome of the firmaments and might fall someday.

wirinet:

Toneyb,

You need to brush up a bit on your astronomy. Our star - The Sun which is an ordinary star is Over I Million times bigger that the earth. Some Red Giants are over 100 times bigger than our own sun.

I am also surprised that some people still choose to believe 21^st century B.C assumptions over 21^st century A.D science, that stars are points in the dome of the firmaments and might fall someday.

Point noted. The stars will fall into the earth some day . If there is any thing the writers of the bible have shown is that the do not understand basic astronomy at all. They wrote down that the sun moves around the earth, the also said that the earth can be stopped from rotating and that they stars were created for signs.

@ Wirinet/ Toneyb -

I appears to me that both of you are so dug-in in the ecstasy of science that it may not have occurred to you that a number of historical, cultural and literary perspectives are relevant to the raised question. Visual imagery is also relevant. I will explain.

It amazes me to find people point to statements laden with obvious visual imagery and apply such statements to scientific knowledge as some sort of psuedo-basis for reaching a conclusion that the bible is flawed. There are indeed flaws in the bible, but in seeking them, please look elsewhere.

First off: i stated that there are historical, cultural and literary aspects to this, because it should be obvious to anyone that ancient writers could only pen down phenomena according to their limited understanding and worldview.

This does not in any way discredit such writings: it is rather the burden of the reader to decipher the clear meanings from the ancient imagery.

A prime example is this: meteors or meteorites may fall to the earth. When this happens, such objects come into the atmosphere at speed and on impact with the atmosphere may splinter up or be engulfed in heat leading some of these bodies to burn up. Indeed, we are all familiar with the phenomenon of "shooting stars" - a modern term for this phenomena!

Now how do you expect an ancient writer to capture such? He only sees a small ball of light smilar to the small lights he sees in the skies and he sees this little ball of light hurtling towards the earth. There is only one way he can capture this event: and that is by stating that stars are falling to the earth. This is why i stated that visual imagery is also important to this, because the writer is simply recording the visual imagery of what he sees. Now how can there be anything wrong with this when even today, meterorites are termed "shooting stars!" Thus it is a historical and literal question of imagery, clearly borne out by even modern references to such objects as being "shooting stars." Language, my friends!

All manner of objects may fall to the earth. When it is said that God sent down balls of fire to consume sodom and Gomorrah, it must perforce occur to the rational mind that a hail of meteors or a splintered hail of meteors must have rained down on those towns. And such happenings are well documented all around the globe: the markings of the land in many areas of the planet bear witness to this. How else would the ancient writer capture it, if not to state that the stars have fallen to the earth? ? ?

It is not the ancient writer that has a problem here: but the modern critic looking for irrelevant things to moot as flaws in scripture.

wirinet:

We cannot hide under the unknown to perpetuate all kinds of scientific and even logical fallacies. How can a start  Plummet into a small planet like earth. Even if we suspend the laws of science and allow a star to leave its position in a galaxy ad then venture into our sun's gravitational pull, the combined effects of the gravity and radiations of the two suns would have quite a devastating effects on all the planets, and not a star plummeting into a planet. Our solar system would be termed a binary  star system, and such systems do not allow for stable planets.

When you say this, just bear in mind the concept of visual imagery again. Because if a prophet sees a vision of a distant time in the future, where the earth is, for example, drawn by the gravitational pull of a star (cosmic alignments do change over time), it is conceivable that a planet could be sucked in by a star. Now from the standpoint of observers on that planet, it would appear as though the star is "falling" into it, whereas in reality the tiny planet is being drawn into the massive star. Visual imagery at work again. Just a thought.

Poetry is not supposed to be taken literally.

If u read the form of the creation account in Genesis 1, you will notice that in it's oral form, before it was written, it was poetry. Its like our indigenous wisdom fill legends. A foreigner taking them literally will never understand what they mean.

Repetition, and a consistent pattern, should clue us in to that. It makes things easy to remember so that it can be passed down thru generations. The Truth in such stories is not in their literal interpretations.

Deep Sight:

@ Wirinet/ Toneyb -

First off: i stated that there are historical, cultural and literary aspects to this, because it should be obvious to anyone that ancient writers could only pen down phenomena according to their limited understanding and worldview.

So why are people using the limited understanding of ancient writers to describe events that will happen in the future? What exactly are you trying to say? You are just trying too hard to pass a moot point across.

This does not in any way discredit such writings: it is rather the burden of the reader to decipher the clear meanings from the ancient imagery.

It does, they wrote down what they thought and they happened to be WRONG. What exactly are you trying to say?  

A prime example is this: meteors or meteorites may fall to the earth. When this happens, such objects come into the atmosphere at speed and on impact with the atmosphere may splinter up or be engulfed in heat leading some of these bodies to burn up. Indeed, we are all familiar with the phenomenon of "shooting stars" - a modern term for this phenomena!

The writers of the bible did not know anything like meteorites, If they did they would have written about them, The writers of the koran wrote that meteorites are spears that allah use to destroy the jinns that go up into paradise to evasedrop. They wrote down what they felts about the cosmos and they were  very wrong period.

Now how do you expect an ancient writer to capture such? He only sees a small ball of light smilar to the small lights he sees in the skies and he sees this little ball of light hurtling towards the earth. There is only one way he can capture this event: and that is by stating that stars are falling to the earth. This is why i stated that visual imagery is also important to this, because the writer is simply recording the visual imagery of what he sees. Now how can there be anything wrong with this when even today, meterorites are termed "shooting stars!" Thus it is a historical and literal question of imagery, clearly borne out by even modern references to such objects as being "shooting stars." Language, my friends!

You forget that they were truly sincere in what they were writing and thought they were right. When they talk about stars falling into the earth they truly meant what they were saying, to them stars were tiny light bulbs hanging in the firmament, that fight along side humans in wars as written in some parts of the bible. If you read the book of daniel you will see where daniel had a vision and in that vision he saw a goat whose horn rose right up into the sky, The horn of the goat pushed one of the stars hanging in the sky and the star came falling into the sky and upon reaching the ground the goat stepped on the star. This cleary shows you what they thought the stars were. They very clearly had NO idea of what they stars were if they did they would have written about it.

All manner of objects may fall to the earth. When it is said that God sent down balls of fire to consume sodom and Gomorrah, it must perforce occur to the rational mind that a hail of meteors or a splintered hail of meteors must have rained down on those towns. And such happenings are well documented all around the globe: the markings of the land in many areas of the planet bear witness to this. How else would the ancient writer capture it, if not to state that the stars have fallen to the earth? ? ?

The sodom and gomorrah story might be one of the many mythical stories that can be found in the bible. So we are to accept the writing of ancient writers who were clearly wrong about events and natural occurance on what basis?

It is not the ancient writer that has a problem here: but the modern critic looking for irrelevant things to moot as flaws in scripture.

They thought that the stars were small light bulbs hanging in the sky which were created only to give light to the earth and to mark the seasons, to them the stars can fight along side humans in wars and fall into the earth some day.They were wrong. Accept it and stop apologizing for things that do not make any sense at all.

When you say this, just bear in mind the concept of visual imagery again. Because if a prophet sees a vision of a distant time in the future, where the earth is, for example, drawn by the gravitational pull of a star (cosmic alignments do change over time), it is conceivable that a planet could be sucked in by a star. Now from the standpoint of observers on that planet, it would appear as though the star is "falling" into it, whereas in reality the tiny planet is being drawn into the massive star. Visual imagery at work again. Just a thought.

The problem is that they ancient writers do not even know that there are planets, when their god was inspiring them to write about how he created the earth he did not even bother to tell them that he created planets because their god did not even know that planets existed. So the point you are trying to make is completely moot.

Krayola:

Poetry is not supposed to be taken literally.

If u read the form of the creation account in Genesis 1, you will notice that in it's oral form, before it was written, it was poetry. Its like our indigenous wisdom fill legends. A foreigner taking them literally will never understand what they mean.

Repetition, and a consistent pattern, should clue us in to that. It makes things easy to remember so that it can be passed down thru generations. The Truth in such stories is not in their literal interpretations.

Tell that to the YEC and most of the Africans that take it literally. There are many christians here on the religion sections that TRULY believe that the universe came about based on the creation accounts found in the book of genesis.