Something for Young Earth Creationists to consider:

@NorthernBear [quote]I don't remember the details now. There is something about the reigns of Herod the Great and Caesar Augustus relative to the birth of Christ and the years not quite matching up right. Not to mention that ridiculous census that required people to return to their ancestral homes not being mentioned anywhere in history, nor the slaughter of the innocents ...[/quote]

The problem with the dating of his death when considering Bible chronology is that some put his death in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. based primarily upon Josephus' history. In dating Herod's being appointed as king by Rome Josephus uses a consular dating, which is a location of events occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this method Herod was appointed as king in 40 B.C.E., but another historian Appianos placed the event at 39 B.C.E.

Josephus places Herod’s capture of Jerusalem at 37 B.C.E. but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey which was in 63 B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) So in that case the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem would be 36 B.C.E. so 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans and 34 years after he took Jerusalem (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) would indicate the date of his death as 2 or 1 B.C.E.

It might be that Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession year method which was the case with the kings of the line of David.

If Herod’s was appointed king by in 40 B.C.E. his first regnal year would probably begin at Nisan 39 to Nisan 38 B.C.E. and if counted from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 B.C.E. his first regnal year would have started in Nisan 36 or 35 B.C.E. so if Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem and those years are counted both according to his regnal year his death would have been 1 B.C.E.

In The Journal of Theological Studies (Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284), W. E. Filmer indicates that Jewish tradition says that Herod’s death occurred on Shebat (January - February) 2

Josephus stated that Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]). There was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian) and so some conclude that this was the eclipse mentioned by Josephus, but there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E. about three months before Passover on January 8 (January 10, Julian) 18 days before Shebat 2 the traditional day of Herod’s death.

There was also another partial eclipse on December 27 (December 29, Julian).

Most scholars date Herod’s death as 4 B.C.E. citing the March 11 eclipse as proof and so place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B.C.E., but that eclipse was only 36 percent magnitude and early in the morning. The other two taking place in 1 B.C.E. would both fit the requirement of having taken place not long before the Passover. The one of December 27 would have been observable in Jerusalem but not as a conspicuous event. Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses (p. 343), says the moon was passing out of the earth’s shadow as twilight fell in Jerusalem so by the time it was dark the moon was shining full. That particular one isn’t included in the Manfred Kudlek and Erich Mickler listing. I personally think you can rule that one out because it is uncertain that it was visible in Jerusalem.

The January 8, 1 B.C.E. was a total eclipse where the moon was blacked out for 1 hour and 41 minutes and would have been noticed. (Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany; 1971, Vol. I, p. 156.)

Also the calculation of Herod’s age at the time of death is thought to be about 70, according to Josephus and he received his appointment as governor of Galilee (generally dated 47 B.C.E.) when he was 15, though scholars think that to be an error that should read 25. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Though Herod has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and not the most reliable source. The most reliable source is the Bible itself.
The evidence is pretty clear that Herod likely died in the year 1 B.C.E. as Luke (don’t give me no shit about Luke!) says that John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. They (the Romans) didn’t use the accession year method os the 15th year would have run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.

John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry in the spring of that year (Luke 1:35-36) Jesus was born in the fall of the year and was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:21-23) putting his baptism in the fall - about October of 29 C.E. Counting back about 30 years would put us at the fall of 2 B.C.E., the birth of Jesus. Daniel’s prophecy of “70 weeks” points to the same time (Daniel 9:24-27 From the year 455 B.C.E. when King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, gave the order to rebuild the wall of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8) to 29 C.E. when Jesus was baptized was 69 weeks or 483 years.

@NorthernBear [quote]All of that not withstanding, there can be no question Jesus was supposed to have been born early in the reign of Augustus. One then can use Biblical chronology to trace back all the way from New Testament times to the six days in which Yahweh created the heavens and the earth. This puts the age of not only the earth but also the "heavens" at just over 6,000 years.[/quote]

No. At Genesis 1:1 the heavens and earth are created, some indeterminate time later the first creative "day" begins. The seventh "day" continues to this day. (Psalm 95:11; Isaiah 40:28; John 5:17; Romans 8:22; Hebrews 4:1-5)

So, at Genesis 1:1: The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

The word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens, including sun, moon, stars and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

Yes the problem is we are trying to look at the Hebrew Scriptures as post enlightenment Westerners rather than first century Jews@BibleData

@sunriselover

So...you don't know how to apply quantum physics to creationism or have an idea of why such a model would support creationism?
Why bring it up then?

@Pikachu Because the Quantum paradigm has succeeded the Newtonian one. When reading Theoretical Physics at Uni I saw no tension between creation and Quantum Physics. But that was a long time ago. As I said, Polkinghorne has made a valuable contribution in this field, for the general reader, of which I must now include myself. Quantum Mechanics is fiendishly difficult. In America you would leave it to tbe minds of Richard Feynman and Murray Gel-Man.

@sunriselover

I guess i don't understand why you'd mention quantum physics or suggest its study in the context of creationism unless you had in mind a reason or example as to why creationism should be re-examined under this lens.

@SW-User

Why don't you pick what you thought was Kent-[i]convicted wife beater[/i]- Hovind's [i][u]best[/u][/i] defeater of evolution from that video and we'll discuss it?👍

And if you're not up for that, perhaps you'd like to make a comment that pertains to the stated subject of this thread.😉

@BlueSkyKing The sun was created before the first day.

Fourth day: the sun and moon were created.


Drummond: The first day. Was it a twenty-four-hour day?

Brady: The Bible says it was day.

Drummond: There wasn’t any sun. How do you know how long it was?

Brady: The Bible says it was a day.

Drummond: A normal day, a literal day, a twenty-four-hour day?

Brady: I do not know.

Drummond: What do you think?

Brady: I do not think about the things that... I do not think about.

Drummond: Do you ever think about the things that you do think about? Isn’t it possible that first day was a twenty-five hours long? There was no way to measure it, no way to tell. Could it have been twenty-five hours?

Brady: It is ... possible ...

Drummond: Oh. You interpret that the first day recorded in the Book of Genesis could be of indeterminate length.

Brady: I mean to state that the day referred to is not necessarily a twenty- four hour day.

Drummond: It could have been thirty hours! Or a month! Or a year! Or a hundred years! [i]Or ten million years![/i]

@BlueSkyKing [quote]Fourth day: the sun and moon were created.[/quote]

No. They were created some time before the first day.

[quote]Brady: The Bible says it was day.[/quote]

So what? What does day mean? Exclusively a literal 24 hour period? Back in the day I worked the day shift 5 days a week. There are three variations in the use of the English word day. A specific period consisting of many days or even years, a period of about 8-12 hours and aliteral 24 hours. And the ancient Hebrew word translated day, yohm? It's used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8; Proverbs 25:13; Psalm 90:4; Isaiah 49:8; Matthew 10:15) And the creation account itself uses the term to mean collectively all six "days" as one day at Genesis 1:3, 5; 2:4 (https://biblehub.com/genesis/2-4.htm) Which is it? 6 or 1?

Additionally the seventh day continues to this day. (Psalm 95:11; Isaiah 40:28; John 5:17; Romans 8:22; Hebrews 4:1-5)

@BibleData [quote][c=4C0073][b]The sun was created before the first day.[/b][/c][/quote]

The Sun was not created the first day. Light was created before the sun. In heaven there is no sun because "The Lord will be our light" Isaiah 60:19 therefore sun and light are not necessarily equivalent.

You are of course a complete disaster when you talk about truth as it’s science at the only way to truth. Sciences applicable in some cases but not in every case. Mozart symphonies are very beautiful which is a true statement but it’s science is not the way to find out.

Science cannot tell you whether you love someone or not@BlueSkyKing

@Mathers When did anyone science can explain everything? Of course science can’t be applied to the individual appreciation of music and other arts. There are people that don’t like Mozart or the genre. Some only like certain Shakespeare plays, if any.

The word science is not always a noun, it’s also a verb. Science can be conducted only on evidence that is detectable, measurable, and testable. Detecting music appreciation or other emotions, probable. Actually measure them? No. Design and test models? No. Can’t conduct science.

[quote] You are once again looking at science being the only form of truth, you are a typical American with a narrow mind who can’t seem to see that there is more than one way to express truth. What on earth do they teach you in those benighted places they call education? @Pikachu[/quote]

[media=https://youtu.be/rQqAaLb0HTU]

You state there alternatives yet offer none.

If I was looking for truth I wouldn’t go to Professor Richard Dawkins . Dawkins believes in the Multiverse of which there is absolutely no proof@BlueSkyKing