Not so. Geologists demonstrated the Earth to be ancient long before radioactivity was even discovered, before Henri Becquerel noticed that uranium salts darkened photographic plates. Radiometric dating is a valuable confirmation though, and adds precision to the estimates of age.
5 Likes
Give me the references /sources John.
Because then and now no one knows how to interpret all the evidence of the flood.
Sources for what, exactly? Earliest writing and its precursors? Hereâs the first one I found. I doubt you can find anything different.
1 Like
None of that discounts any of what Iâm saying. How is it that weâd have a stationary system of coins and other simple writing for multiple millennia and then somehow complicated systems pop up in the Middle East all at once? That article had no significant references for other cultures and and had no explanation other than dating.
Itâs obvious thatâs not correct. We change money forms quickly in modern history. Thereâs no reason to think it would be any different in the past.
Donât be picky! The biological cycle is simply a fact, and doesnât carry any mystical implications (though to those like the great Augustine, it carried philosophical/theological implications about the perfection of natures). Thatâs for another time, but even blunt Yorkshiremen recognise its axiomatic truth.
âHumanâ is not such an obvious concept in historical terms, and doesnât occur in Scripture, and is fuzzy in science (as Josh discusses in his book, and as I do from an anthropological and biblical perspective in mine). Were Neanderthals âhumanâ in biblical terms? Or Homo erectus? (the YEC Todd Wood recognises their existence, and that recognition necessitates thinking what the Bible means by âhuman,â rather than taking it for granted from our own experience.
âDisease is not good.â But if it was used for a providential greater good before the fall, as I have indicated must be the case in a perishable world even a week old, then it was a good part of Godâs creation - not, though, for Adamâs seed intended for eternity. Iâm unaware of anything in Scripture that says diseases, as part of the natural creation, are not good in Godâs eyes. They serve him obediently when he sends them against the wicked in Scripture.
It causes me no problem at all. In general terms, âgoodsâ are part of individual created natures. It is good for a dung beetle to eat poo - not so for me. It is lawful for stags to butt heads to win mates - it is not for me, nor for worms. It good for me to marry - not so for angels.
More specifically, if Adamâs nature was changed from the âmerely humanâ when God placed him in the garden and set him apart to rule creation (cf Ps 8, and commentary in Heb 2), then itâs a question of what âlawsâ he has decreed for those different natures. After all, at another spiritual level it is good for Abrahamâs offspring to be circumcised and avoid pork, but not necessarily for Gentiles. It is good for Christians to be indwelt by the very Spirit of the Living God - but God makes that a unique distinction within the human race - as indeed he does in creating believers anew, but not others.
Distinctions within humanity have been the rule even within the Bible: Sethâs line from Cainâs; Abrahamâs from Lotâs; Jacobâs from Esauâs; Israel from Judah, exiles from remnant, each with different degrees and kinds of grace. England has had the gospel for 2000 years - some tribes still not at all.
Itâs no coincidence that those earliest written records have strong literary and geographical overlaps with the story of Adamâs offspring in Genesis. Perhaps Eden is hiding in plain sight in history, and the dating (whilst imprecise, as my distant relative Archbishop Ussher agreed) is fine - itâs just that the Bible is concerned to date Adam, not the world.
Thatâs an oxymoron. Dating would be the only evidence for an earth of any age. My contention is that itâs the text of the Bible that leaves the age of the earth open.
Thatâs actually a pretty orthodox view - my commentary on the Westminster Confession, written by a Scottish âCalvinist of Calvinistsâ 15 years before Darwin published, states that the Gap Theory was then the view most accepted by educated Evangelicals in his day - if he had considered it unorthodox, he would scarcely have endorsed it in a book written to establish orthodox doctrine.
Science is only common sense with method (except when itâs run by governments or corporations - then it tends to be corrupted!) The same methods used to date your earliest writings to 4000BC also date human remains just a few miles from me to much older. And, indeed, human remains lying undisturbed in layers below where the Sumerian tablets themselves were found.
4 Likes
You do realize this is outside of the YEC timeline too, right?
3 Likes
The biological cycle is a fact now. What do you suppose would have happened to Adam and Eve had they not fallen? What Iâm suggesting is that God does use it for judgment and for good now, but we donât have to extrapolate that back to all of history, when the orthodox position is that itâs only a consequence of the fall into sin. Other religions do not recognize that fact and so often the cycle becomes religious mysticism and similarly we do not recognize the evil of death in our culture and often praise it
Youâre going to run into problems philosophically and logically with this view. Youâre talking about Godâs good design. But itâs not the design in and of itself that it good but God.
Iâm suggesting the dating itself doesnât match recorded Sumerian history. Something is off. Itâs dating to later than it should be. Itâs only when we get to about 1000 years later does dating start matching up with history
Which human remains and tablets are you referring to?
It looks like youâre quoting me, but I didnât say that. If itâs not obvious in the thread already I think dating is off. But when I looked very closely at the evidence I think itâs good that the earliest layers of Tell Brak included a settlement that was razed and had encampments around it. Thereâs not very many options for Babel because there werenât many established early cities and that one is the best IMO. I read some stuff on AIG website and elsewhere. Nimrod/Sargon also needed access to Babel because he said he dug in the dirt because he wanted to recreate it elsewhere. I think that recreation is the Babylon he later destroyed himself (in the Curse of Agade) and other Babylonian cultures reference being aware of it. I have to track down all these details if you want. Just going off the top of my head.
However did you get that from anything in the article I linked? And how is there continuity of all this right through your supposed global flood?
What does that mean? Do you mean that all the dates in that article are wrong? But if so how can you believe the correct dating of what you think happened right after the flood? You offer nothing but transparent excuses not to believe real research in favor of your pre-conceived scenario.
1 Like
I donât think that question will ever be convincingly settled.
1 Like
I think it can easily be settled. You canât attribute Christianity to the Scientific Revolution; that would require time travel. I suppose you could claim that science will eventually result in a time machine and that someone will use it to go back in time to start Christianity. In fact thereâs a science fiction novel with just that premise, Behold the Man. But itâs just fiction, right?
Are you quite sure of that?
In fact, as I discovered years ago and documented in my first book, it only became that around the time of the Reformation, and for reasons that had nothing to do with Biblical exegesis, but more the rise of Renaissance Humanism.
Check out Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, Athanasius, Cyril, Basil, Gregory of Nyziansus, Chrysostom, Augustine, John of Damascus, and in later centuries Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, or Thomas a Kempis, and then get back to me about what constitutes âorthodoxâ through the majority of church history.
But itâs also valuable to do detailed study of the Scriptures, as I have for 55 years, and try to find where they actually teach that doctrine⌠as opposed to taking careless interpretations on trust, as I did for too long.
No, Iâm just quoting the conclusion of the creation story, in which God himself calls his creation âvery good.â But you can check it out in the NT too, in 1 Tim 4:4 for example.
Now, if you want to record your dates from Sumerian history, the problem is greater, because the king lists give reigns of tens of thousands of years each. The actual records are dated archaeologically in the usual way, the oldest being around 2000BC and the rest later, from various sites in Iraq. Some of the kings named have been archaeologically dated by scientific methods, the earliest to round about 2600 BC, pre-dating (in Sumerian records, calibrated by archaeology) the Flood by 3 centuries or so.
But pre-city archaeological remains are found in strata going back through layers of culture back via the mesolithic to the palaeolithic. And this actually correlates to some Sumerian records, that speak of men existing before the gods created men from clay and godâs blood to serve them, not having clothes and living wild. An interesting parallel, actually, with Adam created from the dust of the ground in chapter 2, recorded separately from the creation of male and female in Godâs image in ch1.
Itâs all in the detail, you see.
The remains I refer to close to my own home include Stonehenge, but even closer to home, mesolithic remains from just after the last ice-age. Below them you find the Cretaceous, Jurassic and Triassic rocks containing some of the most famous fossils in the world that give their name to the Jurassic Coast, a world heritage site visible from my house.
2 Likes
Many can attest here - I donât take many interpretations of anything based on trust 
I check multiple sources and it has to fit my worldview. If it doesnât, you better come up with a heck of a good argument. 
I think orthodoxy is often created in the church by opposing error, and can be a minority position often. I think thereâs a lot of evidence the church can oppose one error and fall into another.
Did you discuss this passage from Irenaeus in your book?
I agree that God created and it was very good. But I also believe it quite clear just from Jesusâ miracles of healing alone that we are to see all disease and death as the result of sin and evil. So along with many other passages in the Bible, I interpret the science in light of that.
Mark 5
And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, âIf I touch even his garments, I will be made well.â 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, âWho touched my garments?â 31 And his disciples said to him, âYou see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, âWho touched me?ââ 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, âDaughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.â
Acts 3
Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant[b] Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 16 And his nameâby faith in his nameâhas made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus[c] has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.
17 âAnd now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.
Iâve already explained earlier in the thread how I donât take them as kingâs list but something different.
The flood was around 2500 B.C. Y-chromosome studies have already verified this. Sumer was the first evidence of organized civilization after it.
Thatâs really neat. Iâd interpret them as flood and post-flood layers. And the pre-city cultures as post-flood as well, probably overlapping with Akkadian in terms of time frame. Specificity may make it fun to discuss.
Words are not evidence. Cartoons are not evidence.
The evidence is nothing like what he says in the video. You clearly donât like evidence.
1 Like
You donât trust evidence without interpretations, either.
But no evidence. Evidence itself is much harder to dismiss than hearsay, correct?
Again, no evidence!
I think that you simply avoid all evidence. Why do you refer to hearsay as evidence?
1 Like
Sheâs just (on the Neandertal thread) expicitly rejected astrophysics, biology, and geology, all in one sentence and purely on a childlike faith in creationism. Nothing anyone says or does can conceivably penetrate her invincible shield of ignorance.
2 Likes
No continuity through the flood John. All coins, written records and tools are evidence of people who lived after the flood. Some written records maybe point to some truths before the flood like the Sumerian Kingâs List. I need to read other flood stories. Itâs on my list.
I think the order presented is generally correct. I donât think dating is generally correct on the real dates until much later.
John, thanks.
Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus declared, âI thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
Matthew 18
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, âWho is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?â 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, âTruly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
As you can see, I like to research and my ears perk up to patterns.
Ephesians 6:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.
Your church up-bringing still penetrates how you think and write interestingly and obviously.
Of course. But one has to factor in both his assumption of a literal timescale for Genesis 1, and his recapitulation theory of salvation: he assumed animals were vegetarian before the Fall, but also that Adam had fallen by the evening of the day (Friday) that both he and the animals were created. They were carnivorous by supper time!
But he is unusual amongst the Fathers in that interpretation. I also explain at length why I think his interpretation of Isaiah is mistaken. One simple pointer to that is that the prophetâs predictions include not just vegetarian animals, but human longevity, together with continued human mortality: âthe man who dies at 100 will be considered young.â So we need to be more discriminating than Irenaeus was about what the text is actually saying. If you want to interpret Isaiah as a simple return to Eden, you have to say that Adam would have died - and that the saints hereafter will too. Isaiah meant something else, at least in part.
However, it is notable that Irenaeus accounts for the thorns and thistles, and Adam and Eveâs death, by their exile from the garden to where these things already exist (Adv Haer III XXIII 3). You canât get natural evil as the outcome of the âcurse on the groundâ from Irenaeus.
Irenaeus is also incredibly insightful in distinguishing the role of mankind in Genesis 1, from Adamâs cosmic role in Genesis 2, despite his short time-scale. With his insights, almost certainly gleaned from Ps 8 and Heb 2, he builds his whole theory of atonement, explains the role and final defeat of Satan in a way most modern theologians have lost, and so makes the Eden account a crucial stage in salvation history, rather than just a prequel about how things began. I like Irenaeus, but heâs an outlier on Isaiah.
Iâm unaware of Jesus healing anyone but the fallen children of Adam, whom Iâve already explained were intended for higher things. The basis on which he unbinds a woman from Satanâs power is that she, too, is a daughter of Abraham, the heir of the promise of Christ, not the ante-type of Adam. Iâm not a Pentecostal, but âhealing is in the atonementâ in the sense that it is a deposit of the new creation won by Christ through the atonement.
There is no record that Jesus healed animals or plant diseases. In fact, he withered a fig tree and allowed pigs to be demonized and drown, in order to redeem Legion.
And oneâs theology, to be biblical, also has to factor in that God himself sends plagues as judgement for sin. And not only in the OT, but in the time when all things have come under the rule of Jesus in the heavenly places. Consider what happened to Ananias and Sapphira when they lied to the Holy Spirit, or to Herod when he blasphemed, or to those Corinthians who misused the Lordâs supper, or the apocalyptic plagues of Revelation, poured out by angels from heaven.
Does God do evil? Of course not. Does God use his obedient natural realm in judgement? Absolutely, by the consistent testimony of Scripture. Does anything in that Scripture say that pathogens and parasites were not the product of creation, but of sin? Iâve not found it if it does.
Your two healing passages show that Jesus heals, and that faith is involved. But since I began this whole conversation by saying that Adamâs line was called to imperishable life in the garden through faithful obedience (where the tree of life was), and forfeited it by sin for his offspring, then you prove nothing about the nature of the Genesis 1 creation.
Youâll have to do more careful exegesis to demonstrate that ârestore all thingsâ refers to ârestore all things to the way they were first created in Gen 1,â because the hope of the New Testament is not a return to the original creation, but a new heavens and a new earth.
âAs was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.â
Tell me straight - was Peter promising the crowd the life of earth, or the life of heaven? And what passages can you find in the prophets that refer specifically to the ârestoration of Edenâ as opposed to the ârestoration of Israel to its original promised blessingsâ?
Kings or not they give your chronology a headache.
Y-chromosome studies are science dating. I thought you discounted that? Personally, I doubt the validity of any studies that purport to show a divergence of all human Y-chromosomes from 2500BC. Or even 2900BC, when the Sumerian literature and the archaeology concur on the Shuruppak flood. But not on its worldwide nature, as the Sumerians themselves certainly knew, if you study the way they viewed the world.
Stonehenge straddles the dates of your flood, the current arrangement being around 2500BC, and the main âinfrastructureâ before 3000BC, with other signs of occupation going back to the Mesolithic, c7000BC. Under that are signs of glaciation, which would scour any previous remains, and the ice blanket made England off limits for thousands of years. But within a hundred miles or so east or west there are pre-ice Neanderthal remains.
Now, a worldwide flood would have wiped everything at Stonehenge out, so youâre forced to date everything there to after 2500BC. Since there is a continuous cultural history of the bronze and iron ages after that (Salisbury Plain being incredibly rich in archaeology), you have to account for 5000+ years of migration from Ararat and cultural development from Mesolithic hunter-gathering up to what the Bible describes for Noah, within a matter of decades of Year Zero. You also have to account for 5 millennia of burials up to the completion of Stonehenge.
But worse than that, you have to account for a radical change in genetic makeup between the earlier phases and the later phases, seen across Britain, which fits with waves of migration over centuries, but not with a post-flood migration and rebuild.
But allow Adam to be the proto-Christ called by God to know him in a new way, and to be his âviceroyâ to bring that new life to the world, and suddenly all the conflicts and special-pleading disappear. Adam is a figure in a real divine history, with a real spiritual significance that ties him historically to the Patriarchs, to Israel, to the covenants and to Jesus.
And with that Iâll withdraw from the thread and say, âJust read the books(s).â
6 Likes
I know you werenât telling me to read the books, but you have just acquired a reader. Or at least a purchase which will eventually be read in the timescale of my lifetime if I can tear myself away from other things
3 Likes