Although i dont agree with much of Mr. Setterfield this excerpt from Barry Setterfields's work on bilical Chronology addresses that very issue.........this issuse is but one of many reasons why i support the LXX but it is by no means the only reason..........
An external line of inquiry supports the long LXX chronology here, namely tree-ring dating. Stands of bristlecone pine in the USA have several living specimens around 4600 years old, one suspected of being 4900 years old, and 6 over 3000 years of age. It has been shown that they grow slowly, and are more inclined to miss out a ring than put one on. So the general age is about correct. Consequently, this means that the oldest started growing around 2900 BC. This means it survived the Flood on the MT in 2657 BC or 2305 BC on the short chronology. This is inadmissible. But on the LXX chronology, their growth commenced not only after the Flood in 3537 BC, and after the Babel incident in 3302 BC, but also after the Peleg continental division in 3006 BC.
Allen
PS I put several charts together to show the comonilities and the diferences between the Chrono modles in the LXX and MST..very interesting i think........you can almost reach paridy between them if the majority figures are used up to Abraham......
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:16:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia
Dear Philip,
I agree with Jack that organic evolution is not a viable alternative to creation. Not in any way, shape or form.
However, I want to pick up on the second thing you said, "the world has existed no more than 10,000 years and probably less." Are you questioning the Genesis record that allows us to estimate ~6,000 years for the age of the universe?
In relation to this, I recall that someone resigned from ICR because of the ages of some trees, as determined from their growth rings. Does anyone else remember this and, if so, can they supply some meat on the bones, please?
Neville
-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:50:20 +0100
Dear Philip,
Of course I'm biased, but not against true science.
I don't understand your comment below. Your sure its a viable alternative? It's not a viable alternative! If it were there would be no point in discussing it!
Jack
----- Original Message -----
Not me. I am absolutely certain that evolution is a viable alternative as to how we arrived today. I just happen to know with certainty that it did not happen that way, and that the world has existed no more than 10,000 years and probably less.
