Hi KingJimmy,What is clear from both sides is that the pyramids had to be built after the flood.Mizraim is a son of Ham, son of Noah (Genesis 12:10). This name is also the common name for Egypt (which is also known as 'the land of Ham,' for instance in Psalm 105:23)The Secular timing of the pyramids depends on counting the Pharoahs Reign consecutively.The lists of Pharoahs come from ancient historians from before Christ.The dates are blown up.This accounts for the secular discrepancy.Josephus stated that Egyptians made "Israelites build Pyramids"In The Secular timing view would say that the Israelites could not be in Eygpt at that time and Josphus would have to be wrong. The bible says the Israelites at the time of Moses were making bricks and gathering straw which is in line with Josephus's account not the Secular timing view,So they did have the time,Yours Staff
I'm not in a position to say which view is correct. My main point in all that I have said is that we always need to keep an open mind with such things, and ultimately, not be dogmatic about issues, that when we look at the complete evidence before us, leave questions that are difficult if not impossible to solve. Especially over an issue as small as the exact date of the earth. Faithfullness in carefully handling the text we have is more important than being dogmatic. If the text raises questions about our dogma, we should always keep an open mind to fine tuning our beliefs.
TMK,When approaching such questions on how to square the biblical account of creation with mainstream scientific theories, it's good to remember that all interpretation of evidence is subjected to assumptions (or "axioms"). Mainstream scientific theories and their accompanying methodology (e.g. radiometric dating) are predicated on certain tacit assumptions about how things were like at an earlier time. Some examples: (i) assuming that scientific laws and its parameters were the same as today; (ii) assumptions concerning the conditions of the earth and the universe back then.These assumptions are hard to verify - unless you were there to witness these historical events, or you have a time machine. Secular scientists might think these assumptions are "reasonable", but that does not make them true (and some of them might not even be falsifiable - though Karl Popper's ideas on scientific falsifiability has more holes than a Swiss cheese i.m.o.). From a biblical perspective, such assumptions concerning the past are not necessarily true. We know that the fall in Genesis had tremendous repercussions for creation. There's also the flood too, which likewise might have affected earth in significant ways. The difficulty is that God has not told us how these events affected creation from a scientific perspective. Neither has He disclosed what scientific conditions were like in the past. And since we don't know which are the correct 'assumptions' to adopt, it's hard to churn out alternative theories to mainstream ones. We can point out all the shaky bits in mainstream theories, but that by itself would unlikely persuade the secular world (speaking from experience).As there can be no scientific reasoning without presuppositions, I believe that all differences in opinion can ultimately be traced back to differences in assumptions adopted by different individuals.I should perhaps point out that challenging the assumptions undergirding mainstream scientific theories is not an arcane activity confined just to creationists. One example would be João Magueijo, who has a good scientific pedigree (Cambridge, Princeton, Imperial College) and has done theoretical work on light possibly having a varying speed. Is he closer to the truth than other scientists? Only God knows... but at least he acknowledges the inadequacies and problems with the 'scientific' creation story promulgated by the mainstream.This post might not have answered your question, but I hope it helps to put things in a better perspective.
Thanks Yuehan. I appreciate your post. I understand there is much mystery here. I get that for radio dating to work a constant rate of decay is assumed. I suppose it is possible that decay was faster in the past-- who knows. It's funny because I was watching an old classic sci fi film last night and the main character said something along the lines of "God gave man intelligence so he could discover the wonders of creation."I believe this is true, although obviously intelligence is for more than just discovery. Perhaps some day (when we have the time machines you mentioned- lol) we will find out what really happened back in the day.