[geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia

  • From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:23:37 -0700 (PDT)

That would be ok with me, although i admit i am somewhat skeptical of the 
dating,..... it is possible,....... in any case...........the LXX flood happens 
on 3329-3328BC LXX or ~3369-3368 in the composite Chrono ..i lean toward the 
composite .......
It is important to note that the MST as only been popularly declared the 
infallible,offical cannon of  OT text since about the 17th century by mostly 
Protestants.......17th century that "revelation" came along. about the same 
time Heliocentrisim took dominance  ~1650.....ummmmmm.......... :)

----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:57:09 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia

There is what was thought to be a wood in Australia, Tasmania I think, which it 
turned out was just one tree - the oldest on the World at over 5,000 years.



-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:34:55 -0700 (PDT)

 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.

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?



-----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!
----- Original Message ----- 
From: philip madsen 
To: geocentrism list 

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. 

Free 3D Earth Screensaver - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth

Other related posts: