Religion fears Science

[chad kincham]

The Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 1:6-8 expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

1:6 ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים׃
1:7 ויעשׂ אלהים את־הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשׁר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשׁר מעל לרקיע ויהי־כן׃
1:8 ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שׁמים ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום שׁני׃

The Septuagint also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

Absolutely incorrect.

The Amplified Bible is a revision of the American Standard Version is one of the most unique English translations," in which nuances in translation are indicated using various punctuation marks such as words or phrases in brackets, to show that they are "not explicitly contained in the original texts."[3]

The amplified bible does not support your assertion:

Genesis 1:6-8
Amplified Bible

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse [of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below the expanse] from the waters [above the expanse].” 7 And God made the expanse [of sky] and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so [just as He commanded]. 8 God called the expanse [of sky] heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Read full chapter
Footnotes

1. Genesis 1:6 Or a firmament.

Nothing in the text states the earth is flat.

 

[Laconia79]

Sol9mons temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and it’s ruins are right there in Israel to see.

Archaeology has verified the Bible hundreds of times over.

As the great archaeologist William F. Albright wrote, "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition" (Archaeology and the Religions of Israel, 1969, p. 169).

He also stated: "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history" (The Archaeology of Palestine, 1960, pp. 127-128).

The temple that was destroyed in AD 70 was not Solomon's temple that temple according the bible was destroyed several hundred years before I believe the Babylonians destroyed the temple Solomon built. And I am sorry but evidence is biased religious evidence. The problem is when you hold up to the archeological telescope it does not add up. God is a matter of faith no fact.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Whenever science contradicts the Bible, science is wrong.

Science never contradicts the Bible—but it very often contradicts unlearned interpretations of it.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Absolutely incorrect.

The Amplified Bible is a revision of the American Standard Version is one of the most unique English translations," in which nuances in translation are indicated using various punctuation marks such as words or phrases in brackets, to show that they are "not explicitly contained in the original texts."[3]

The amplified bible does not support your assertion:

Genesis 1:6-8
Amplified Bible

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse [of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below the expanse] from the waters [above the expanse].” 7 And God made the expanse [of sky] and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so [just as He commanded]. 8 God called the expanse [of sky] heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Read full chapter
Footnotes

1. Genesis 1:6 Or a firmament.

Nothing in the text states the earth is flat.

Gen. 1:6. And God said, Let there be a firmament [the expanse of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below] from the waters [above]. The Amplified Bible Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation

Gen. 1:6. And God said, “Let there be an [a]expanse [of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below the expanse] from the waters [above the expanse].” Amplified Holy Bible Copyright © 2015 by The Lockman Foundation

I see that you are quoting from a revised edition of The Amplified Bible titled, Amplified Holy Bible published in 2015 by The Lockman Foundation, the publishers of the New American Standard Bible, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995, 2020. All three of these Bibles use the word “expanse” rather than “dome” because The Lockman Foundation desires to avoid the controversy surrounding the more precisely accurate translation, “dome.”

This controversy concerns the obvious implication that the earth is flat when the word “dome” is used. However, in the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, we find an excellent article (Vol. III, pp. 568-569 [two lengthy columns of fine print per page] on the word רָקִיעַ. Of special importance is the following from the article,

The verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is especially used, however, of beating out metals into thin plates (Exod. xxxix, 3, Numb. xvi, 39), and hence the substantive רַקֻּעַים “broad plates” of metal (Numb. 16:38). (The italics are theirs).​

Furthermore, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of the word רָקִיעַ in Gen. 1:7, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956). Moreover, John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,

6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23)​

Therefore, we see that the translation “expanse” is based upon the cognate transitive verb (רָקַע) of the noun רָקִיעַ (dome) found in Genesis 1:6-8. However, the translation “expanse” is not entirely honest because it covers up the fact that that which is expanded is a solid rather than a gas.

 

[chad kincham]

Therefore, we see that the translation “expanse” is based upon the cognate transitive verb (רָקַע) of the noun רָקִיעַ (dome) found in Genesis 1:6-8. However, the translation “expanse” is not entirely honest because it covers up the fact that that which is expanded is a solid rather than a gas.

ע rāqı̂ya‛, “expanse;” στερέωμα stereōma, רקע rāqa‛, “spread out by beating, as leaf gold.” This expanse was not understood to be solid, as the fowl is said to fly on the face of it Gen 1:21. It is also described as luminous Dan 12:3, and as a monument of divine power Psa 150:1.

7. עשׂה ‛āśâh “work on,” “make out of already existing materials.”

Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water. - For this purpose God now calls into existence the expanse. This is that interval of space between the earth on the one side and the birds on the wing, the clouds and the heavenly bodies on the other, the lower part of which we know to be occupied by the air. This will appear more clearly from a comparison of other passages in this chapter (Gen 1:14, Gen 1:20).

And let it be dividing between water and water. - It appears that the water in a liquid state was in contact with another mass of water, in the shape of dense fogs and vapors; not merely overhanging, but actually resting on the waters beneath. The object of the expanse is to divide the waters which are under it from those which are above it. Hence, it appears that the thing really done is, not to create the space that extends indefinitely above our heads (which, being in itself no thing, but only room for things, requires no creating), but to establish in it the intended disposition of the waters in two separate masses, the one above, and the other below the intervening expanse. This we know is effected by means of the atmosphere, which receives a large body of water in the state of vapor, and bears up a visible portion of it in the form of clouds. These ever-returning and ever-varying piles of mist strike the eye of the unsophisticated spectator; and when the dew is observed on the grass, or the showers of rain, hail, and snow are seen falling on the ground, the conclusion is obvious - that above the expanse, be the distance small or great, is laid up an unseen and inexhaustible treasury of water, by which the earth may be perpetually bedewed and irrigated.

Gen 1:8

Then called God the expanse, heaven. - This expanse is, then, the proper and original skies. We have here an interesting and instructive example of the way in which words expand in their significance from the near, the simple, the obvious, to the far and wide, the complex and the inferential: The heaven, in the first instance, meant the open space above the surface in which we breathe and move, in which the birds fly and the clouds float. This is the atmosphere. Then it stretches away into the seemingly boundless regions of space, in which the countless orbs of luminous and of opaque surfaces circumambulate. Then the heavens come to signify the contents of this indefinitely augmented expanse, - the celestial luminaries themselves. Then, by a still further enlargement of its meaning, we rise to the heaven of heavens, the inexpressibly grand and august presence-chamber of the Most High, where the cherubim and seraphim, the innumerable company of angels, the myriads of saints, move in their several grades and spheres, keeping the charge of their Maker, and realizing the joy of their being. This is the third heaven 2Co 12:2 to the conception of which the imaginative capacity of the human mind rises by an easy gradation. Having once attained to this majestic conception, man is so far prepared to conceive and compose that sublime sentence with which the book of God opens, - “In the beginning God created ‘the heavens’ and the earth.”

The expanse, or aerial space, in which this arrangement of things has been effected, having received its appropriate name, is recognized as an accomplished fact, and the second day is closed.

Albert Barnes

Genesis 1:6

Let there be a firmament — This term, which is an exact translation of the word used by the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Old Testament, by no means expresses the sense of the word used by Moses, רקיע, rakiang, which merely means extension or expansion. And as this extension or expansion was to be in the midst of the waters, and was to divide the waters from the waters, it chiefly, if not solely, means the air or atmosphere which separates the water in the clouds from that which is in and upon the earth.

Joseph Benson

Gen 1:6-8. Second day.

firmament — an expanse - a beating out as a plate of metal: a name given to the atmosphere from its appearing to an observer to be the vault of heaven, supporting the weight of the watery clouds. By the creation of an atmosphere, the lighter parts of the waters which overspread the earth’s surface were drawn up and suspended in the visible heavens, while the larger and heavier mass remained below. The air was thus “in the midst of the waters,” that is, separated them; and this being the apparent use of it, is the only one mentioned, although the atmosphere serves other uses, as a medium of life and light.

Jameson-Fausset-Brown

Genesis 1:6

And God said, Let there be a firmament - Our translators, by following the firmamentum of the Vulgate, which is a translation of the στερεωμα of the Septuagint, have deprived this passage of all sense and meaning. The Hebrew word רקיע rakia, from רקע raka, to spread out as the curtains of a tent or pavilion, simply signifies an expanse or space, and consequently that circumambient space or expansion separating the clouds, which are in the higher regions of it, from the seas, etc., which are below it. This we call the atmosphere, the orb of atoms or inconceivably small particles; but the word appears to have been used by Moses in a more extensive sense, and to include the whole of the planetary vortex, or the space which is occupied by the whole solar system.

Adam Clarke

Scripture interprets scripture, and it definitively differentiates between land and sky, thusly:

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Thereby we see that the firmament is unequivocally the sky/atmosphere, and the dry land is called earth.

The firmament is absolutely beyond any dispute, not the earth or land, but is the sky.

The Bible still does not say that the earth is flat.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

ע rāqı̂ya‛, “expanse;” στερέωμα stereōma, רקע rāqa‛, “spread out by beating, as leaf gold.” This expanse was not unThis expanse was not understood to be solid, as the fowl is said to fly on the face of it Gen 1:21. It is also described as luminous Dan 12:3, and as a monument of divine power Psa 150:1.derstood to be solid, as the fowl is said to fly on the face of it Gen 1:21. It is also described as luminous Dan 12:3, and as a monument of divine power Psa 150:1.


7. עשׂה ‛āśâh “work on,” “make out of already existing materials.”


Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water. - For this purpose God now calls into existence the expanse. This is that interval of space between the earth on the one side and the birds on the wing, the clouds and the heavenly bodies on the other, the lower part of which we know to be occupied by the air. This will appear more clearly from a comparison of other passages in this chapter (Gen 1:14, Gen 1:20).


And let it be dividing between water and water. - It appears that the water in a liquid state was in contact with another mass of water, in the shape of dense fogs and vapors; not merely overhanging, but actually resting on the waters beneath. The object of the expanse is to divide the waters which are under it from those which are above it. Hence, it appears that the thing really done is, not to create the space that extends indefinitely above our heads (which, being in itself no thing, but only room for things, requires no creating), but to establish in it the intended disposition of the waters in two separate masses, the one above, and the other below the intervening expanse. This we know is effected by means of the atmosphere, which receives a large body of water in the state of vapor, and bears up a visible portion of it in the form of clouds. These ever-returning and ever-varying piles of mist strike the eye of the unsophisticated spectator; and when the dew is observed on the grass, or the showers of rain, hail, and snow are seen falling on the ground, the conclusion is obvious - that above the expanse, be the distance small or great, is laid up an unseen and inexhaustible treasury of water, by which the earth may be perpetually bedewed and irrigated.


Gen 1:8


Then called God the expanse, heaven. - This expanse is, then, the proper and original skies. We have here an interesting and instructive example of the way in which words expand in their significance from the near, the simple, the obvious, to the far and wide, the complex and the inferential: The heaven, in the first instance, meant the open space above the surface in which we breathe and move, in which the birds fly and the clouds float. This is the atmosphere. Then it stretches away into the seemingly boundless regions of space, in which the countless orbs of luminous and of opaque surfaces circumambulate. Then the heavens come to signify the contents of this indefinitely augmented expanse, - the celestial luminaries themselves. Then, by a still further enlargement of its meaning, we rise to the heaven of heavens, the inexpressibly grand and august presence-chamber of the Most High, where the cherubim and seraphim, the innumerable company of angels, the myriads of saints, move in their several grades and spheres, keeping the charge of their Maker, and realizing the joy of their being. This is the third heaven 2Co 12:2 to the conception of which the imaginative capacity of the human mind rises by an easy gradation. Having once attained to this majestic conception, man is so far prepared to conceive and compose that sublime sentence with which the book of God opens, - “In the beginning God created ‘the heavens’ and the earth.”


The expanse, or aerial space, in which this arrangement of things has been effected, having received its appropriate name, is recognized as an accomplished fact, and the second day is closed.


Albert Barnes

This material was first published in 1834, and therefore, is of no value today for biblical exegesis. The first serious study of the Hebrew text of Genesis was that of Franz Delitzsch, published in 1887. He, of course, acknowledged that the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ expresses the concept of a solid structure, but he asserts that the writer of the passage used the word “figuratively” rather than literally.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Joseph Benson


Gen 1:6-8. Second day.


firmament — an expanse - a beating out as a plate of metal: a name given to the atmosphere from its appearing to an observer to be the vault of heaven, supporting the weight of the watery clouds. By the creation of an atmosphere, the lighter parts of the waters which overspread the earth’s surface were drawn up and suspended in the visible heavens, while the larger and heavier mass remained below. The air was thus “in the midst of the waters,” that is, separated them; and this being the apparent use of it, is the only one mentioned, although the atmosphere serves other uses, as a medium of life and light.


Jameson-Fausset-Brown


Genesis 1:6


And God said, Let there be a firmament - Our translators, by following the firmamentum of the Vulgate, which is a translation of the στερεωμα of the Septuagint, have deprived this passage of all sense and meaning. The Hebrew word רקיע rakia, from רקע raka, to spread out as the curtains of a tent or pavilion, simply signifies an expanse or space, and consequently that circumambient space or expansion separating the clouds, which are in the higher regions of it, from the seas, etc., which are below it. This we call the atmosphere, the orb of atoms or inconceivably small particles; but the word appears to have been used by Moses in a more extensive sense, and to include the whole of the planetary vortex, or the space which is occupied by the whole solar system.



Adam Clarke


Scripture interprets scripture, and it definitively differentiates between land and sky, thusly:


Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


Thereby we see that the firmament is unequivocally the sky/atmosphere, and the dry land is called earth.


The firmament is absolutely beyond any dispute, not the earth or land, but is the sky.


The Bible still does not say that the earth is flat.

Joseph Benson’s commentary is even older than that of Albert Barnes. Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Bible is also older than that of Albert Barnes. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary is the commentary on the whole Bible by Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset and David Brown and published in 1871. Robert Jamieson wrote the part on Genesis- Esther.

The Hebrew word רקיע is never used in any ancient Hebrew literature to express the concept “atmosphere.” Today, the word רקיע is used to express the concept “sky” as observed from the earth, especially at night. The ancient Hebrews interpreted what they saw at night as a solid dome and therefore called it the רקיע.

 

[coffee4u]

The firmament wrapped around the entire earth and yes it would have appeared solid, as solid as grey clouds appear now. From where a man stood looking up it would also appear as a dome because the world is so big his eyes can only see to the horizon. The firmament held water which mostly came down during the global flood. The firmament is why some animals and humans lived a long time and why animals that keep growing their entire lives grew to be so large.

 

[Ragdoll]

I disagree with the premise of the OP. For example, I am a Christian. I enjoy studying the Bible and learning more about God. I am not afraid of science. Most Christians I know are not afraid of science. I do not understand why the OP thinks that Christians fear science? Christians just don't like bad science. We see evolution theory as just that: bad science. I also find it ironic that modern science was founded and established Christians who were mostly young earth creationists! So why would we Christians fear science when modern science was inspired by the Bible?

Despite some of the flaws in Ussur's timeline, it was his timeline that most scientists followed. This same timeline became the basis of the YEC movement. However, in recent years I have learned that Ussur's timeline was flawed because he used the Masoretic Text instead of the Greek Septuagint that supplied the more accurate chronologies. With that in mind, the earth, according to the chronology of the LXX, is, I believe (if my memory is correct), is 6650 years old. I see no problem with this. But I do see a problem with unhistorical methods of dating that cannot be verified by any scientists. The whole problem with evolution is that it's still stuck in Aristotelean philosophy that became obsolete during the rise of modern science.

Over the years I began to see why some of my scholarly friends never teach from a philosophical point of view. I began to see how philosophy can be deceitful and disguise itself as science. I also have turned away from philosophy because it is really no longer relevant when it comes to the study of origins. What counts is theology and science. These days I can clearly see the philosophy in evolution theory. Modern science does not base conclusions on systematic rhetoric. It based on continued observation and multiple tests. With that said, there is no way any scientist can know how old the earth is. Modern scientific method does not allow for such rhetorical assumptions.

It all boils down to who do you trust? I trust God and His word in the Bible over the vain imaginations of fallible man, who speaks with an agenda unrelated to a charitable heart.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

there is no way any scientist can know how old the earth is.

Of course there is! The age of the earth has been very accurately and reliably measured by radiometric dating techniques and found to be 4.54 billion years old. (For an excellent article written from an evangelical Christian perspective, please see the following:

Radiometric Dating

Modern scientific method does not allow for such rhetorical assumptions.

This measurement of the age of the earth is no mere rhetorical assumption—it is a measurement that is accepted as factual by scientists around the world working in a very wide spectrum of scientific investigation.

It all boils down to who do you trust? I trust God and His word in the Bible over the vain imaginations of fallible man, who speaks with an agenda unrelated to a charitable heart.

I trust God and His word—but I do NOT trust interpretations of His word that make a mockery of God, His word, and what God has chosen to teach us through science and other disciplines. Moreover, I do not sin against God by disobeying His word and judging the hearts of other men.

 

[GenemZ]

I disagree with the premise of the OP. For example, I am a Christian. I enjoy studying the Bible and learning more about God. I am not afraid of science. Most Christians I know are not afraid of science. I do not understand why the OP thinks that Christians fear science? Christians just don't like bad science. We see evolution theory as just that: bad science. I also find it ironic that modern science was founded and established Christians who were mostly young earth creationists! So why would we Christians fear science when modern science was inspired by the Bible?

Despite some of the flaws in Ussur's timeline, it was his timeline that most scientists followed. This same timeline became the basis of the YEC movement. However, in recent years I have learned that Ussur's timeline was flawed because he used the Masoretic Text instead of the Greek Septuagint that supplied the more accurate chronologies. With that in mind, the earth, according to the chronology of the LXX, is, I believe (if my memory is correct), is 6650 years old. I see no problem with this. But I do see a problem with unhistorical methods of dating that cannot be verified by any scientists. The whole problem with evolution is that it's still stuck in Aristotelean philosophy that became obsolete during the rise of modern science.

Over the years I began to see why some of my scholarly friends never teach from a philosophical point of view. I began to see how philosophy can be deceitful and disguise itself as science. I also have turned away from philosophy because it is really no longer relevant when it comes to the study of origins. What counts is theology and science. These days I can clearly see the philosophy in evolution theory. Modern science does not base conclusions on systematic rhetoric. It based on continued observation and multiple tests. With that said, there is no way any scientist can know how old the earth is. Modern scientific method does not allow for such rhetorical assumptions.

It all boils down to who do you trust? I trust God and His word in the Bible over the vain imaginations of fallible man, who speaks with an agenda unrelated to a charitable heart.

You keep confusing the age of this created world that graces the surface of the earth, with past ages buried below this creation. Until you can see that? Those who teach that the earth is millions of years old have you trapped by seeing you as ignorant. For they know that the earth itself is much older than this present creation.

Now, if you could show them that the Bible always knew that the earth is much older than this current created world we live in? Then you will have them trapped with their speculative dogmatism they use to try to rationalize with the theory of evolution as to the origin of life.

I will try again... Here: Without Form and Void - Introduction

Understanding that will trap them.

For how could Moses, a mere man, know that the earth is much older than this creation? It had to be God that showed him what to write! I have used this knowledge to frustrate evolutionists who feel justified in mocking young earth creationists. For young earth creationists mock the Biblical insight into knowing other worlds were created before this one. Faith is not irrational trust.

 

[Ragdoll]

You keep confusing the age of this created world that graces the surface of the earth, with past ages buried below this creation. Until you can see that? Those who teach that the earth is millions of years old have you trapped by seeing you as ignorant. For they know that the earth itself is much older than this present creation.

Now, if you could show them that the Bible always knew that the earth is much older than this current created world we live in? Then you will have them trapped with their speculative dogmatism they use to try to rationalize with the theory of evolution as to the origin of life.

I will try again... Here: Without Form and Void - Introduction

Understanding that will trap them.

For how could Moses, a mere man, know that the earth is much older than this creation? It had to be God that showed him what to write!

Formless and void means exactly what it says. This is also how the ancients understood it.

 

[GenemZ]

Formless and void means exactly what it says. This is also how the ancients understood it.

Oh. That settles it.

That's lie.

Its been a long held view! It was known for a long time. Just no Darwinian controversy was around to challenge it. So, it just became a matter of fact sort of event in Bible study without any way to explain why.

Donald Grey Barnhouse illustration of the gap theory – LifeCoach4God

Without Form and Void - Chapter 1

 

[Ragdoll]

Of course there is! The age of the earth has been very accurately and reliably measured by radiometric dating techniques and found to be 4.54 billion years old. (For an excellent article written from an evangelical Christian perspective, please see the following:

Radiometric Dating



This measurement of the age of the earth is no mere rhetorical assumption—it is a measurement that is accepted as factual by scientists around the world working in a very wide spectrum of scientific investigation.



I trust God and His word—but I do NOT trust interpretations of His word that make a mockery of God, His word, and what God has chosen to teach us through science and other disciplines. Moreover, I do not sin against God by disobeying His word and judging the hearts of other men.

There is no way you can date the earth with a gadget. No scientists have ever travelled back in time with a time machine to check to see if the date is correct. Also, when dating unknown things, your dating methods are millions of years. When dating known things of the modern age, they still date millions of years. Absolutely no scientist knows the age of the earth. Philosophy is not science so try not to confuse the two. Scientific method is very rigid and doesn't allow for assumptions. You make a great assumption when you trust a dating method that cannot be verified. Its all philosophy.

On an honest day, any evolutionist will tell you that nobody knows the age of the earth or the universe. A few years back, I was watching the Science Channel and they even admit the universe could be young or it could be very old. They, of course, believe it is very old and lay down their philosophical reasons why they believe that. But its not science. Don't confuse science with philosophy. Know the difference.

 

[GenemZ]

There is no way you can date the earth with a gadget. No scientists have ever travelled back in time with a time machine to check to see if the date is correct. Also, when dating unknown things, your dating methods are millions of years. When dating known things of the modern age, they still date millions of years. Absolutely no scientist knows the age of the earth. Philosophy is not science so try not to confuse the two. Scientific method is very rigid and doesn't allow for assumptions. You make a great assumption when you trust a dating method that cannot be verified. Its all philosophy.

On an honest day, any evolutionist will tell you that nobody knows the age of the earth or the universe. A few years back, I was watching the Science Channel and they even admit the universe could be young or it could be very old. They, of course, believe it is very old and lay down their philosophical reasons why they believe that. But its not science. Don't confuse science with philosophy. Know the difference.

Yet, they can easily know its much older than you claim it is.

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. That was before Day One we see in Genesis 1. There were no days counted before Day One.

 

[Believer000]

Religion especially Christianity has always feared science in all of its forms. The reason for this, it proves many biblical belief false. Copernicus and Galileo with telescopes figured out the earth is not the center of the universe and the church fought furiously to prevent that information from being spread.

Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Archeology all have disproved many things in the bible and Christianity fears that and so does Islam. The earth is not flat nor the center of the universe, Natural Disasters is nature acting up not punishment from god. Diseases are not caused by evil spirits but by germs. Geology, Archeology, and Astronomy have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth and universe are much older than religion likes to admit.
The bible is a book written over 2,000 yrs. ago by fisherman and goat herders, has been translated into and out of 100s of languages, by human beings, depending on the language one word can mean several thing. Evolution, Astronomy, Biology, Geology, Archeology, science in all its forms threatens Christians more than most. It does not threaten me, it proves the existence of god to me. If you look at how complex the universe is you can see a designer behind it. I believe in Christ, I also know that the New Testament has been edited books have been removed. I believe the bible to be a book designed to show us how to have a relationship with god, I think much of it that many consider fact is just parable and myth.

Science and especially atheist scientists are constantly trying to disprove God's existence (I was one myself), - ironically they end up doing the opposite.

 

[Ragdoll]

Yet, they can easily know its much older than you claim it is.

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. That was before Day One we see in Genesis 1. There were no days counted before Day One.

True. The length of Day 1 through Day 3 are harder to determine by our current methods of understanding. And yet, Day 1 concludes with the earth's first full rotation as a planet. I estimate that Day 1 may have been approximately 30 hours given or take. But that is just a guess. There was no sun or moon and nothing to slow down the rotation of the earth. According to our modern estimates, Day 2 & 3 may have been a mere 12 hours. But here again, this is just a guess based on modern measurements. This I do know for certain: that God was creating the day-night cycle with earth-time in mind. On Day 4, earth time was well established. God created everything in very intelligent stages.

Jesus calmed the storm with just a single Command. That command did not take a long period of time either. When we learn about the power of God we should not be in doubt about His ability to create the universe and earth in a short period of time. And unlike cosmic evolution, the universe in Genesis went through stages before there were stars. The earth was made out of water and evolutionists cannot ever provide a rational explanation as to the origin of water. Yet right there in Genesis the answer to that question is satisfactorily answered.

As for modern dating methods. These cannot be trusted. Things of a known age are tested and shown not to deliver accurate dates. Objects like a child's toy have been dating back millions of years. The truth is that there is no way a scientist can use a modern gadget to date the earth. Sure, they work up to a certain degree, but they cannot date anything back to, say, 100-million B.C. In order to accurately date something back to 100-million B.C., a scientist must have something known of that particular year to check the date with. How can that be done? It can't. There is no way of knowing that information. We're talking science here and not philosophy. But what we see from evolutionists is a form of gadget philosophy dressed us as science. But those of us who have learned the difference between science and philosophy easily reject evolution theory because we know its all philosophy and not scientific method.

 

[Ragdoll]

Gen. 1:6. And God said, Let there be a firmament [the expanse of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below] from the waters [above]. The Amplified Bible Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation

Gen. 1:6. And God said, “Let there be an [a]expanse [of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below the expanse] from the waters [above the expanse].” Amplified Holy Bible Copyright © 2015 by The Lockman Foundation

I see that you are quoting from a revised edition of The Amplified Bible titled, Amplified Holy Bible published in 2015 by The Lockman Foundation, the publishers of the New American Standard Bible, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995, 2020. All three of these Bibles use the word “expanse” rather than “dome” because The Lockman Foundation desires to avoid the controversy surrounding the more precisely accurate translation, “dome.”

This controversy concerns the obvious implication that the earth is flat when the word “dome” is used. However, in the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, we find an excellent article (Vol. III, pp. 568-569 [two lengthy columns of fine print per page] on the word רָקִיעַ. Of special importance is the following from the article,

The verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is especially used, however, of beating out metals into thin plates (Exod. xxxix, 3, Numb. xvi, 39), and hence the substantive רַקֻּעַים “broad plates” of metal (Numb. 16:38). (The italics are theirs).​

Furthermore, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of the word רָקִיעַ in Gen. 1:7, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956). Moreover, John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,

6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23)​

Therefore, we see that the translation “expanse” is based upon the cognate transitive verb (רָקַע) of the noun רָקִיעַ (dome) found in Genesis 1:6-8. However, the translation “expanse” is not entirely honest because it covers up the fact that that which is expanded is a solid rather than a gas.

This is not sound exegesis. First, there is no dome mentioned in Genesis. The word raqiya means "expanse" and not a solid object. The solid comes from another word that appears nowhere in Hebrew, which is the Latin word firmament. This word came from the Greek stereoma because there was no Greek equivalent to raqiya. Today, there is more knowledge on the subject and all Hebraist agree that raqiya means "expanse." This expanse consists of the atmosphere "the heavens", the space between land and sky where air flows, and the surface of the ocean. The expanse also describes space where the stars and planets are. Genesis 1:6-8 are about the earth's sky. But the heavens on Day 4 are about the greater expanse which is space.

 

[GenemZ]

True. The length of Day 1 through Day 3 are harder to determine by our current methods of understanding. And yet, Day 1 concludes with the earth's first full rotation as a planet. I estimate that Day 1 may have been approximately 30 hours given or take. But that is just a guess. There was no sun or moon and nothing to slow down the rotation of the earth. According to our modern estimates, Day 2 & 3 may have been a mere 12 hours. But here again, this is just a guess based on modern measurements. This I do know for certain: that God was creating the day-night cycle with earth-time in mind. On Day 4, earth time was well established. God created everything in very intelligent stages.

Jesus calmed the storm with just a single Command. That command did not take a long period of time either. When we learn about the power of God we should not be in doubt about His ability to create the universe and earth in a short period of time. And unlike cosmic evolution, the universe in Genesis went through stages before there were stars. The earth was made out of water and evolutionists cannot ever provide a rational explanation as to the origin of water. Yet right there in Genesis the answer to that question is satisfactorily answered.

As for modern dating methods. These cannot be trusted. Things of a known age are tested and shown not to deliver accurate dates. Objects like a child's toy have been dating back millions of years. The truth is that there is no way a scientist can use a modern gadget to date the earth. Sure, they work up to a certain degree, but they cannot date anything back to, say, 100-million B.C. In order to accurately date something back to 100-million B.C., a scientist must have something known of that particular year to check the date with. How can that be done? It can't. There is no way of knowing that information. We're talking science here and not philosophy. But what we see from evolutionists is a form of gadget philosophy dressed us as science. But those of us who have learned the difference between science and philosophy easily reject evolution theory because we know its all philosophy and not scientific method.

Yet, the truth remains. Other worlds were created and later destroyed before our present world was made in six days.

And, God goes as far as to tell us that our present world will also be destroyed and replaced with a new one as others had happen to them before.

“See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." Isa 65:17
​

Our world will become "prehistoric."

 

[Halbhh]

I disagree with the premise of the OP. For example, I am a Christian. I enjoy studying the Bible and learning more about God. I am not afraid of science. Most Christians I know are not afraid of science. I do not understand why the OP thinks that Christians fear science? Christians just don't like bad science. We see evolution theory as just that: bad science. I also find it ironic that modern science was founded and established Christians who were mostly young earth creationists! So why would we Christians fear science when modern science was inspired by the Bible?

Despite some of the flaws in Ussur's timeline, it was his timeline that most scientists followed. This same timeline became the basis of the YEC movement. However, in recent years I have learned that Ussur's timeline was flawed because he used the Masoretic Text instead of the Greek Septuagint that supplied the more accurate chronologies. With that in mind, the earth, according to the chronology of the LXX, is, I believe (if my memory is correct), is 6650 years old. I see no problem with this. But I do see a problem with unhistorical methods of dating that cannot be verified by any scientists. The whole problem with evolution is that it's still stuck in Aristotelean philosophy that became obsolete during the rise of modern science.

Over the years I began to see why some of my scholarly friends never teach from a philosophical point of view. I began to see how philosophy can be deceitful and disguise itself as science. I also have turned away from philosophy because it is really no longer relevant when it comes to the study of origins. What counts is theology and science. These days I can clearly see the philosophy in evolution theory. Modern science does not base conclusions on systematic rhetoric. It based on continued observation and multiple tests. With that said, there is no way any scientist can know how old the earth is. Modern scientific method does not allow for such rhetorical assumptions.

It all boils down to who do you trust? I trust God and His word in the Bible over the vain imaginations of fallible man, who speaks with an agenda unrelated to a charitable heart.

Hey, wanted to let you know, for some reason your post made me want to look up precisely what the very-strong-in-faith Isaac Newton thought.
(yes, very strong in faith: The Faith Behind the Famous: Isaac Newton)


Since Newton is one of the most towering figures of the modern age of science. And you'd written, "I also find it ironic that modern science was founded and established Christians who were mostly young earth creationists!" Which isn't all that important, but is interesting to consider anyway.

And I found this:


Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Pg 450 of that book we find:
( from a letter written by Newton to Thomas Burnet in January 1680.):

(by 'vulgar' Newton seems to mean simply the typical notions of the common people, who are not scientists nor very mathematically inclined, etc.)

"As to Moses, I do not think his description of ye creation either philosophical or feigned, but that he described realities in a language artificially adapted to ye sense of ye vulgar. Thus when he speaks of two great lights, I suppose he means their apparent not real greatness. So when he tells us God placed these lights in ye firmament, he speaks I suppose of their apparent not real place, his business being not to correct the vulgar notions in matters philosophical, but to adapt a description of the creation as handsomely as he could to ye sense and capacity of ye vulgar. So when he tells us of two great lights, and ye stars made ye 4th day, I do not think their creation from beginning to end was done the 4th day, nor in any one day of ye creation, nor that Moses mentions their creation, as they were physicall bodies in themselves, some of them greater than the earth, and perhaps habitable worlds, but only as they were lights to this earth, so therefore though their creation could not physically [be] assigned to any one day, yet being a part of ye sensible creation which it was Moses’s design to describe, and it being his design to describe things in order according to the succession of days, allotting no more than one day to one thing, they were to be referred to some day or other, and rather to the 4th day than any other, if they [the] air then first became clear enough for them to shine thro’ it, and so put ye appearance of lights in ye firmament to enlighten the earth…”
Isaac Newton on the Mosaic Account of Creation

Since Newton famously wrote many religious tracks, and is such a towering figure in the modern age of science, he's a fun example to look to out of curiosity to learn what he thought.

It's not that I would just think whatever Newton thought was always automatically correct -- thought it's clear it's superior in thinking to typical stuff we hear in many YEC theories. (You'd not just assume without any reflection that YEC theory is automatically correct I hope!) But, at least Newton is someone that has more than just a clue on how to discover new things in science, and it's interesting to see how he thought.