Biblical Time Measurement Vs Modern Time Measurement

Hi Creavolution,We literalists take the years as normal years...there have been (IIRC) variations in what defines a year...but nothing very major.Moses was 120 years old (maybe a year or two more or less by our standards *shrugs*). But we take all the Patriarchs named in Genesis as having lived nearly a thousand years old, too -- no one ever quite made it to 1000, though.--JasonPS: The Bible hints that Moses longevity (for post-Flood folks in Moses's time, his life span was a bit over par) was due to God's particular blessing for the Bible also indicates that his natural strength had not abated and his eye-sight had not been affected either.People DO still come close to 120 every now and then (114 year old died not too long ago in some country or other)...but I seriously doubt it could be said of any centurian (besides Moses) that their natural strength had not abated and that their eyesight had not dimmed.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 10-01-2005 05:41 PM

This is true.Actually, this is true in several languages, including English.Back in George Washington's day, people were very concerned about honesty and cherry trees.However, not only does the Bible include the wording "evening and morning" to describe the days...but the days are also numbered first, second, and so on. Numbered days, in Hebrew, IIRC, cannot mean other than literal days.It's that way in english, too.The first day, we played games.God does not to satisfy science, scientists, or human reasoning...he can do those things in 7 days. Furthermore, for those who try to make the "days" line up with evolution theory or the big bang somehow...the order of events appears quite unrelated...the sun, moon, and stars do not get made till day 4 (so much for the Bible agreeing with the Big Bang)...birds are made on the same days as fish...all land-dwelling animals are made on day 6 (so much for the Bible agreeing with evolution theory).--Jason*note*
I know you, Brian, already ARE a literalist...this is actually for the benefit of others wondering how we see things...but you had made the point that "yom" CAN mean an "indefinite period of time." So, I was just throwing in my 2 cent on that point.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 10-01-2005 06:02 PM

Hi Creavolution, No. I'm not joking. I AM a literalist...I believe Genesis to be literally true. I believe that Adam lived to be 930 years old (regular years). I believe the environmental differences between the pre-Flood earth and the post-Flood earth (i.e., we lived in a wrecked earth) explain the differences between pre-Flood ages and post-Flood ages. The declining ages given in the just-after-the-Flood lineages probably, imo, reflect various environmental variables reaching new equilibriums.I used the term "the Patriarchs" to mean "our Forefathers" as the men listed from Adam to Noah are, if the Bible is true (and I believe it is), the forefathers of all humans on the earth today.As far as dating creation...I believe that the lineage given can date the creation of the earth fairly accurately (but apparently there is the possibility of missing persons in the lineage, which would make the earth somewhat older than 6000 years). So, I believe in a 6000 to 10000 year old earth.--Jason

Brian,I see that you are NOT a literalist...as I supposed you were.Your first post on this thread made me think you were for some reason...but I've glanced around at some of your other threads and no longer think that.By any chance...was your avatar recently that of a black cat?--Jason{edited to remove an extraneous word}This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 10-03-2005 02:50 PM

Well, I knew who Black-Cat Brian was, but I never before saw Blinking-Eye Brian and, based on that one post, mistook you for a YEC.I just didn't recognize you in your new avatar.--Jason

Hi Ringo,I had to find Message 117 to refresh my memory. Do we really have "every possible variation of "water mineral content, diet, topsoil content, etc." represented in our environments today? If so, then how is the extreme giantism represented in extinct reptiles (and longevity required to reach such sizes?), plants, and insects explained? What if there was some atmospheric mechanism that effectively filtered out UV and Xrays? What if the overall oxygen percentage were slightly different? What if...?AFAIK, I have nothing but belief and speculations for my position. No scientific evidence. My 10th grade biology book uses the phrases "scientists believe" an awful lot. Perhaps it wasn't actually a science book.So...what was the environment on earth like when life first formed (according to modern abiogenic theories)? The evidence for the various answers to that question is what?Anyways, I was just answering Creavolution...who seemed genuinely interested in what literalists believe. I told him what at least one literalist believes.--Jason

Hi Creavolution, Precious little that I know of. I think there are various ancient myths about humans living to be 1000 years old. Also, the extreme sizes of some varieties of dinosaur might indicate a great longevity not witnessed in modern reptiles.I can think of at least one rebuttal to my big reptiles = old reptiles line of reasoning: whales. Whales are huge...but how old are they?--Jason

Hi jar,The blue whale and the giant sequoia?It was my understanding, though, that how dinosaurs were able to support their oxygen needs is still not understood.Insect size is limited, I thought, by their particular method of respiration and the oxygen content/air pressure of the atmosphere.So might these fossils be considered that the atmoshpere has changed somehow over time (whichever side of the debate one is on)?--Jason

Hi Creavolution, No problem. You're coming across as genuinely amazed...and I find your amazement understandable. Today there are fish and amphibians. In the fossil record there are fish and amphibians.Yet, you accept that fish turned into amphibians, right?(My point is not to get into discussions about fish and amphibians but to demonstrate that you are believing in something that doesn't make sense to me).--Jason

the link you give says it looks like the ancient atmosphere had considerably more oxygen...35% versus today's 21%.--Jason

Hi Creavolution,(I know the topic is a bit stale now, but I just noticed your reply to me...and how you had interpretted my comment...so just to try to clear up what I meant...as you were not the only one to misunderstand me, apparently).In response to my comment about fish turning into amphibians, you write: Right. I know how evolution is proposed to work. At least in a general way. I didn't mean that I thought evolution was proposing that all the fish magically turned into amphibians...but simply that fish were the ancestors of amphibians. I also was attempting to point out that, AFAIK, there is no evidence whatsoever of the "many small steps" that supposedly occurred. You believe in these "many small steps" between fish and amphibians, but do you have evidence of them?--JasonAbE:
And, to be sure, I am not meaning to turn this topic into an "evidence for amphibian evolution" discussion. I was merely trying to point out that I think you are accepting certain (and major?) ToE ideas without evidence. And, the purpose of this post is to clear up what the original post meant.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 10-12-2005 04:18 PM

Hi Nuggin,You write: No. That's not how I view the ToE's explanation of how amphibians came about. I've been posting on EvC since Nov 2004 with some regularity, and, I guess, I was assuming that folks were familiar with my understanding of the ToE.My above response to Creavolution should clear this misunderstanding up a bit.--Jason

Hi NosyNed,I'm not actually sure how my comment shocked you. Does my "clarification" post to Creavolution (above) fix the "shocking" nature of my post...or were you concerned about something else?--Jason