It's not a false image. It was the created reality at that moment in time of creation. But there are theories of how the Flood really changed a lot of geography. Look into it. I'm not sure, but I think there is a website that might have some answers: answersingenesis.com.
Great way of saying it is a false image, but not a false image. Erosion doesn't count?
I'm open to a good theory on the Grand Canyon, but however quickly it was formed does not prove any argument that the Earth is not as old as it seems. Quick events can occur in the context of a long time frame.
The Bible says so. More and more of the Bible is being proving as absolute fact as the years go by. My logical side has seen all of the arguments on both sides, good and bad. I have to go with the Bible.
BTW, I can scrape something quickly and then set it outdoors to erode slowly. The slow erosion today doesn't prove a thing for certain.
If you do not believe God to be a liar, than you should be on the same page as me. The bible is God's word and God's word has earth at about 6000 years old.
It never said that in the Bible. It is an inference made by mortal men, so if you would rather believe mortal men than what is in God's Word (the Creation), good luck.
What a lot of people misunderstand is that God's Word was first manifested in the Creation (as a work of Christ, also "the Word"). The Bible came long after the events recorded in it. I don't subscribe to any conflict between Creation and the Bible, but I simply do not believe that mortal men can divine facts from the Bible that are not stated in the Bible. Or that their interpretations of the Bible (His Word) are superior to quantitative understanding of the Creation (His Word).
I'm not impressed. The quibbles amount to a restatement of what I said already: that a young object can be in the midst of an old setting. Nothing to say about the distances to the stars and the time taken for light from them to reach us.
I don't subscribe to the hypothesis that God is a liar and creates false images of reality.
It's not a false image. It was the created reality at that moment in time of creation. But there are theories of how the Flood really changed a lot of geography. Look into it. I'm not sure, but I think there is a website that might have some answers: answersingenesis.com.
Great way of saying it is a false image, but not a false image. Erosion doesn't count?
I'm open to a good theory on the Grand Canyon, but however quickly it was formed does not prove any argument that the Earth is not as old as it seems. Quick events can occur in the context of a long time frame.
The Bible says so. More and more of the Bible is being proving as absolute fact as the years go by. My logical side has seen all of the arguments on both sides, good and bad. I have to go with the Bible.
BTW, I can scrape something quickly and then set it outdoors to erode slowly. The slow erosion today doesn't prove a thing for certain.
You quote the passage and I can give you credit. I've read the Bible in three different translations, and there is nowhere an accounting of years.
Hard to scrape uranium nuclei. The slow erosion shows how much time has passed in erosion---i.e., how much time has passed.
If you do not believe God to be a liar, than you should be on the same page as me. The bible is God's word and God's word has earth at about 6000 years old.
It never said that in the Bible. It is an inference made by mortal men, so if you would rather believe mortal men than what is in God's Word (the Creation), good luck.
What a lot of people misunderstand is that God's Word was first manifested in the Creation (as a work of Christ, also "the Word"). The Bible came long after the events recorded in it. I don't subscribe to any conflict between Creation and the Bible, but I simply do not believe that mortal men can divine facts from the Bible that are not stated in the Bible. Or that their interpretations of the Bible (His Word) are superior to quantitative understanding of the Creation (His Word).
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/
I'm not impressed. The quibbles amount to a restatement of what I said already: that a young object can be in the midst of an old setting. Nothing to say about the distances to the stars and the time taken for light from them to reach us.
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/