Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?

[jek187]

The Bible says mankind is ~5,000 years old. However, they have found evidence of a settlement in Chile that is 12,000-12,500 years old, and projective points in North America that are 11,000 years old. National Geographic talking about 12k year old settlement and projectile points (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1106_031106_firstamericans.html)

I realize this argument comes up with dinosaurs and geological issues, dealing with the earth being millions or billions of years old. People normally defend the Bible by saying that the 1st week was extra long. This does not apply here. (Since Adam did not start breeding until after Creation Week.)

What defense do Bible believers have for this? This seems like such a blatant error, that I must be missing some key defense.

[SmileyEH]

Arguing with literal interpretors of the bible is pretty unconstructive. They aren't going to change their minds, and we aren't going to throw out a couple thousand years of science either.

-SmileyEH

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing with literal interpretors of the bible is pretty unconstructive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying that there are people that take the bible's sections on genealogy (Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, etc) figuratively? There may or may not be stuff in the bible that is to be taken figuratively. However, I doubt a passage like: When Arpachshad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah; 13and Arpachshad lived after the birth of Shelah four hundred three years, and had other sons and daughters. has some sort of figurative meaning. If there's anything in the bible that should be taken literally, it seems passages like this are the ones.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says mankind is ~5,000 years old.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been curious about this. Where does it say that?


(Im not saying you're wrong. Im just saying I dont know where the 5k comes from)

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says mankind is ~5,000 years old.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been curious about this. Where does it say that?


(Im not saying you're wrong. Im just saying I dont know where the 5k comes from)

[/ QUOTE ]

I came across some random article that stated Noah lived only 2k years before Jesus, so I looked up how long it was from Adam to Noah, and that was another 1k, for 5k. It is possible the article I read was wrong about Noah being 4k years ago. It is possible to go through the bible and peace together the genealogy from Adam to Jesus, although it would be quite tedius. I tried Googling but couldn't find anyone who had already done it.

[malorum]

implied (well sort of) from the geneologies within the narrative etc. see Archbishop Ushers calculation

[malorum]

All about trust.
The argument is really circular but...
Why do I believe?
"Because the bible tells me so".
I accept the authority of the bible (no proof required just faith), and I think the text implies some things about the nature of the world ( time taken to create it etc.).
As for the science and the extrapolations into the past made by it. Well like I said I trust the bible.
A Circular argument but that is the nature of my somewhat fideistic faith.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
implied (well sort of) from the geneologies within the narrative etc. see Archbishop Ushers calculation

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Malorum for the good Google term.

CMI, from this link: Usher's calculation (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/ussher.html)

Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 1491 BC 'on a Wednesday'.

So, I guess we're looking at 6k years since Adam created. I can't see a logical explanation how there is evidence of a settlement in Chile 6k years before Adam.

[jakethebake]

clearly it's just a conspiracy by "scientists" to make themselves more important and take advantage of the rest of us.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
All about trust.
The argument is really circular but...
Why do I believe?
"Because the bible tells me so".
I accept the authority of the bible (no proof required just faith), and I think the text implies some things about the nature of the world ( time taken to create it etc.).
As for the science and the extrapolations into the past made by it. Well like I said I trust the bible.
A Circular argument but that is the nature of my somewhat fideistic faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that there's one of two possibilites here:

1) The bible is true, and science is mistaken on the age of the aforementioned objects by a factor of at least 3.

2) Science is correct, and the bible is mistaken.

How blatant of an error would the bible have to make, where you didn't believe what it said, simply because "it told you so"?

[drudman]

There are people who believe the Earth is flat, and you could fly them around the equator until they returned where they landed, and they would still believe the Earth is flat.

Many people are very unintelligent. Let's just leave it at that.

[vulturesrow]

The Bible makes no claims as to the actual time of beginning of mankind. The link that was provided is one man's attempt to interpret the Bible to form a certain chronology. But I am pretty sure his claim in no way reflects a commonly held opinion. I am Catholic and again I almost certain the Church holds no official teaching on the true age of the human race. Now if the Bible had definitive claims or the Church had definitive claims in this area, than yes it would definitely raise some questions.

[wmspringer]

3) Science and the bible are both correct, but people are misinterpreting the bible.

[spamuell]

I can't believe the ridiculously dismissive answers you're getting from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Whenever I see stuff like this I realise I should stop pretending to know what I'm talking about half the time.

Anyway, I do know a little about this. It's currently the year 5765 according to the Old Testament. I don't know where it says this though.

There are quite a lot of explanations but most of them don't really satisfy me. Especially ones like, "well science has been wrong before and could be wrong again."

You did cite sections of the the bible where a literal understanding is the only possible option. However, there are other sections where periods of time are very open to interpretation. For example, God created the world in seven "days", however the sun and the moon weren't created till the 4th day. So how long is a day before the sun exists? It could be thousands of years which would explain the discrepancy.

Furthermore, the word "yom" is the Hebrew word which is usually interpreted as "day" however some Talmudic scholars suggest that it in the case of the creation story, it just means a period of time so this makes up for the difference.

Another explanation is that God created the universe already aged several thousand years old.

I hope this helps somewhat.

[KaneKungFu123]

You have to understand that God's words have many meanings. I think you can definitely take that Wise Man's age figuratively. God doesnt make mistakes in his holy text. Our simple minds arent capable of fully understanding his wisdom and rulesof grammer and thought. It is posible that God has a more sophisticated numeral system which would explain why our simple minds are s confused.

just remember that we are evil and that God is good, and to take the son of our father, the great one, the blood of the lamb, who was spat on and stabbed and nailed to a cross for our sins, take him to your heart.

god bless you jek you simple minded [censored].
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says mankind is ~5,000 years old. However, they have found evidence of a settlement in Chile that is 12,000-12,500 years old, and projective points in North America that are 11,000 years old. National Geographic talking about 12k year old settlement and projectile points (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1106_031106_firstamericans.html)

I realize this argument comes up with dinosaurs and geological issues, dealing with the earth being millions or billions of years old. People normally defend the Bible by saying that the 1st week was extra long. This does not apply here. (Since Adam did not start breeding until after Creation Week.)

What defense do Bible believers have for this? This seems like such a blatant error, that I must be missing some key defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Science and the bible are both correct, but people are misinterpreting the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it possible to misinterpret a genealogy?

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe the ridiculously dismissive answers you're getting from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Whenever I see stuff like this I realise I should stop pretending to know what I'm talking about half the time.

Anyway, I do know a little about this. It's currently the year 5765 according to the Old Testament. I don't know where it says this though.

There are quite a lot of explanations but most of them don't really satisfy me. Especially ones like, "well science has been wrong before and could be wrong again."

You did cite sections of the the bible where a literal understanding is the only possible option. However, there are other sections where periods of time are very open to interpretation. For example, God created the world in seven "days", however the sun and the moon weren't created till the 4th day. So how long is a day before the sun exists? It could be thousands of years which would explain the discrepancy.

Furthermore, the word "yom" is the Hebrew word which is usually interpreted as "day" however some Talmudic scholars suggest that it in the case of the creation story, it just means a period of time so this makes up for the difference.

Another explanation is that God created the universe already aged several thousand years old.

I hope this helps somewhat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this doesn't help very much. I am referring to just the time period since Adam was created, so the stuff about interpreting the meaning of "day" during Creation Week is a moot issue.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to understand that God's words have many meanings. I think you can definitely take that Wise Man's age figuratively. God doesnt make mistakes in his holy text. Our simple minds arent capable of fully understanding his wisdom and rulesof grammer and thought. It is posible that God has a more sophisticated numeral system which would explain why our simple minds are s confused.

just remember that we are evil and that God is good, and to take the son of our father, the great one, the blood of the lamb, who was spat on and stabbed and nailed to a cross for our sins, take him to your heart.

god bless you jek you simple minded [censored].
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says mankind is ~5,000 years old. However, they have found evidence of a settlement in Chile that is 12,000-12,500 years old, and projective points in North America that are 11,000 years old. National Geographic talking about 12k year old settlement and projectile points (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1106_031106_firstamericans.html)

I realize this argument comes up with dinosaurs and geological issues, dealing with the earth being millions or billions of years old. People normally defend the Bible by saying that the 1st week was extra long. This does not apply here. (Since Adam did not start breeding until after Creation Week.)

What defense do Bible believers have for this? This seems like such a blatant error, that I must be missing some key defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Due to the silly statement that apparently we need to interpret genealogies, and the quite unchristianlike closing comment, I'm just going to hope this post was some weird joke.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, this doesn't help very much. I am referring to just the time period since Adam was created, so the stuff about interpreting the meaning of "day" during Creation Week is a moot issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about this part:

[ QUOTE ]
Another explanation is that God created the universe already aged several thousand years old.

[/ QUOTE ]

i.e. the world is about 6000 years old, God created it with 6000 year old remains in it already.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
i.e. the world is about 6000 years old, God created it with 6000 year old remains in it already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this something Christians typically find plausible? I know it's technically possible, but why would God create an earth with 6,000 year old civilation markings on it, if He wants His people to be Christians? Why put evidence to the contrary on the planet?

Yes, I realize God is so much more awesome than us, that we can't hope to understand Him, but this suggestion makes no sense to me.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if the Bible had definitive claims or the Church had definitive claims in this area, than yes it would definitely raise some questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone's interpretation of the bible as it saying that Adam was over 10k years ago. That's still over 2.5k years short of the Chile ruins PLUS migration time (and who knows how long it takes to migrate from Iraq to Chile?) I think this does raise some serious questions, and I'm wondering why there aren't some stock defenses to this. Nothing so far has seemed remotely logical.

[TStoneMBD]

noah put all the animals on a ship, floated up the polar regions, were frozen in ice for millions of years. dinosaurs were created and roamed the earth. they all died. meteor hit the earth, messed up some climates and such, noah and the animals unfreeze, float back down to land not realizing what happened and the human race continues.

(my own bs christian theory that i just created on the fly. wham! /images/graemlins/grin.gif )

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone's interpretation of the bible as it saying that Adam was over 10k years ago. That's still over 2.5k years short of the Chile ruins PLUS migration time (and who knows how long it takes to migrate from Iraq to Chile?) I think this does raise some serious questions, and I'm wondering why there aren't some stock defenses to this. Nothing so far has seemed remotely logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point. Most theologians dont care when Adam actually came to be. Thats not what is important. And as I said, as far as I know the Church doenst hold any official opinion or teaching on the actual time of the origin of man. You are trying to set this up as a refutation of something most religious people dont believe or care about, that is the age of human civilization.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone's interpretation of the bible as it saying that Adam was over 10k years ago. That's still over 2.5k years short of the Chile ruins PLUS migration time (and who knows how long it takes to migrate from Iraq to Chile?) I think this does raise some serious questions, and I'm wondering why there aren't some stock defenses to this. Nothing so far has seemed remotely logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point. Most theologians dont care when Adam actually came to be. Thats not what is important. And as I said, as far as I know the Church doenst hold any official opinion or teaching on the actual time of the origin of man. You are trying to set this up as a refutation of something most religious people dont believe or care about, that is the age of human civilization.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you actually missed the point. The Bible is wrong. You keep saying "The Church" doesn't have an opinion on this, but you really need to be looking at the Bible's opinion on this. It appears to be blatantly wrong. Now, if you don't want to care about this, that's fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that the book your religion is built on, has a glaring error.

[TStoneMBD]

the church has no stance on the issue and people dont care because they dont have a defense against this, so they ignore it entirely. the church, its followers and anything else run by man has no bearing on the validity of the bible. its already obvious that man and church has corrupted the bible.

[vulturesrow]

You have yet to show that the Bible claims that the Earth is x number of years old. I saw exactly one source on this, which was the website where one guy tried to extrapolate a chronology from the Bible. The Bible makes no claim as to the exact moment of the beginning of mankind. Its really that simple.

[paland]

... you can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do)”

taken from Anne Lamott from Bird by Bird - Not her quote.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
... you can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do)”

taken from Anne Lamott from Bird by Bird - Not her quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well good thing most Christians dont think God hates anyone.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
You have yet to show that the Bible claims that the Earth is x number of years old. I saw exactly one source on this, which was the website where one guy tried to extrapolate a chronology from the Bible. The Bible makes no claim as to the exact moment of the beginning of mankind. Its really that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adam to Noah: 874 years, Genesis 5
Noah to Abraham: 790, Genesis 11
55 more generations to Christ. I'll even be generous and give you 40 years between generations. Another 2,200. Genealogy (http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html)
Total: 3,864 BC, 2005 after = 5,869.

Your book appears to have at least one glaring error.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have yet to show that the Bible claims that the Earth is x number of years old. I saw exactly one source on this, which was the website where one guy tried to extrapolate a chronology from the Bible. The Bible makes no claim as to the exact moment of the beginning of mankind. Its really that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adam to Noah: 874 years, Genesis 5
Noah to Abraham: 790, Genesis 11
55 more generations to Christ. I'll even be generous and give you 40 years between generations. Another 2,200. Genealogy (http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html)
Total: 3,864 BC, 2005 after = 5,869.

Your book appears to have at least one glaring error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, thats your interpretation of what the Bible means.

[Zeno]

The Bible does not say anything concrete in absolute years. It is a somewhat haphazard progression story that only relates years in a relative manner.

For an interesting exercise check out the geneology of Jesus as related in Matthew with the one in Luke (John and Mark do not relate a geneology). List them side by side as far as they go.

By the way, the Bible is not a History or Science Text. Though of couse, many will disagree with that statement.

-Zeno

[vulturesrow]

Here is a link to the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Chronology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm)

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
implied (well sort of) from the geneologies within the narrative etc. see Archbishop Ushers calculation

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Malorum for the good Google term.

CMI, from this link: Usher's calculation (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/ussher.html)

Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 1491 BC 'on a Wednesday'.

So, I guess we're looking at 6k years since Adam created. I can't see a logical explanation how there is evidence of a settlement in Chile 6k years before Adam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see a difference between you stating that the bible says "5k years" which it doesn't and what one person calculated?

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a link to the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Chronology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

That link seems to put things at around 6,238 years.

As for your interpretation issue, I fail to see how there's another interpretation. This is all built on genealogies ffs.

[vulturesrow]

You need to read more closely. From the link I provided:

It is, however, certain that we cannot confine the years of man's sojourn on earth to that usually set down

and

Such questions as the antiquity of civilization, which had reached a high pitch in Babylonia and Egypt 4000 years B. C., the radical differences of language at the same early period, differences of race (cf. the white, black, and yellow races), which do not seem to have been modified within the historic period, and the remains of human workmanship going back to a very remote antiquity — all these things seem to lead to the conclusion that the existence of man on earth goes back far beyond the traditional 4,000 years.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible does not say anything concrete in absolute years. It is a somewhat haphazard progression story that only relates years in a relative manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does from Adam to Abraham. At which point, it's simply a case of counting the generations to get a reasonable estimate.

[ QUOTE ]
For an interesting exercise check out the geneology of Jesus as related in Matthew with the one in Luke (John and Mark do not relate a geneology). List them side by side as far as they go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I've done that. What is the explanation for the contradiction? Something of that magnitude can't be unexplained. Can it?

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, the Bible is not a History or Science Text. Though of couse, many will disagree with that statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether it is or not, if you take what it says as true, you arrive at the conclusion that Adam lived ~6k years ago.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
implied (well sort of) from the geneologies within the narrative etc. see Archbishop Ushers calculation

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Malorum for the good Google term.

CMI, from this link: Usher's calculation (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/ussher.html)

Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 1491 BC 'on a Wednesday'.

So, I guess we're looking at 6k years since Adam created. I can't see a logical explanation how there is evidence of a settlement in Chile 6k years before Adam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see a difference between you stating that the bible says "5k years" which it doesn't and what one person calculated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do. Although I said ~5k years, and it seems most people agree that the Bible says it's around 6k. It doesn't really change my point.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Such questions as the antiquity of civilization, which had reached a high pitch in Babylonia and Egypt 4000 years B. C., the radical differences of language at the same early period, differences of race (cf. the white, black, and yellow races), which do not seem to have been modified within the historic period, and the remains of human workmanship going back to a very remote antiquity — all these things seem to lead to the conclusion that the existence of man on earth goes back far beyond the traditional 4,000 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware then, that this appears to be contradictory to what the Bible points to.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You are aware then, that this appears to be contradictory to what the Bible points to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read the entry I provided more carefully and realize why the Bible doesnt point to any sort of specific point in time.

Also in regards to the point about the geneaologies of Christ presented in the Gospels, here is another entry for you to read when you get done with the other.

Geneaology of Christ (You are aware then, that this appears to be contradictory to what the Bible points to.)

[snowden719]

this can't be so tough guys. Is it possible that a creator could create a world 5000 years ago that is qualitatively identical to one that was billions of years old, of course it's possible. If your only objection is that "God wouldn't do that" then you need to realize that ballin' is just a hobby for God. Maybe he is whimsical and enjoys seeing people making asses of themselves. Either way, not having an insight into the psychology of God makes your counter argument rather silly.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says mankind is ~5,000 years old.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jek,

The Bible does not say that so your kinda being inaccurate yourself. Nevertheless I get your point.

According to Christians man is comprised of a physical body and an immortal soul. If I remember correctly, the bible says mans body was created first and then God "breathed" into it an immortal soul. Does the science you cite proved that the creatures who inhabited those settlements 12000 years ago or who created those projective points 11000 years ago had immortal souls? If those creatures did not have souls they are not considered mankind as defined by the bible thumpers.

If you want to prove the geneolgy of the Bible wrong, you have to prove exactly when God "breathed" into man an immortal soul. Since science is not yet capable of proving or disproving wether or not man actually has an immortal soul it cannot yet be relied upon to conclude the geneology of the bible to be inaccurate.

Thus, the answer to your question is, "No, it is not this simple to prove the Bible inaccurate."

Stu

[wozo30]

Sure it is...treat the bible as fictional literature and problem solved. And if the proving of immortal or mortal souls is lacking scientific evidence then show me the proof of the bible's non-fictionality, and remember faith doesn't count.

[eastbay]

I don't get it. Next you will be shocked and dismayed to have found that scientists have recently discovered that the atmosphere gets colder at high altitude, and therefore Icarus really couldn't have melted his wings by flying closer to the sun? It's an outrage!

eastbay

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure it is...treat the bible as fictional literature and problem solved. And if the proving of immortal or mortal souls is lacking scientific evidence then show me the proof of the bible's non-fictionality, and remember faith doesn't count.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to convert you to Christianity therefore I have no responsibility to prove the Bible as being non-fictional. If you are trying to convert people away from Christianity then the onus is on you to prove the Bible is fictional. This is something that you and the OP have so far failed to do.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it. Next you will be shocked and dismayed to have found that scientists have recently discovered that the atmosphere gets colder at high altitude, and therefore Icarus really couldn't have melted his wings by flying closer to the sun? It's an outrage!

[/ QUOTE ]

HAH!!

If Icarus flew towards the equator(and towards warmer latitudes) he would be flying closer to the sun without necessarily changing altitude.

Its not that simple as you think to prove the Myth of Icarus as inaccurate is it?

Stu

[dabluebery]

Nah. I'm no bible-thumper, but it's not hard to treat the references to years and timelines in the bible, especially the old testament, as a bunch of symbolism and fictional devices.

The universe created in seven days? Maybe they're not "days" by our standards. The descriptions of how long these guys lived in the book of Genesis..... surely they didn't live hundreds of years.

If you're interested in disproving the bible, there are plenty of better places.

Rob

[wozo30]

A human is unable to flap their arms fast enough in order to produce enough thrust to have the lift needed to stay aloft. Or maybe Icarus was just superhuman able to defy the laws of Physics.

[wozo30]

But why make exceptions or generalizations in order to make it fit. Shouldn't a rock solid hunk of accepted fact be supported without these sideturns??

[wozo30]

I thought the bible was the word of Christ not his father??

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the bible was the word of Christ not his father??

[/ QUOTE ]

They are one and the same.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
A human is unable to flap their arms fast enough in order to produce enough thrust to have the lift needed to stay aloft. Or maybe Icarus was just superhuman able to defy the laws of Physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps he was simply the Paul MacCready of his time.

Stu

[etgryphon]

I don't know if someone has written this already, but the direct calculation of the genealogy is not a very good calender estimate because there is a Hebrew tradition of ignoring unimportant or less important generations.

For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.
Matt 1:4

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't always mean Ram was the biological father of Amminadab because your offspring in can include people in your line of descent that either thought the same way as you or did something of great importance that should be noted. If you didn't really do anything that was impressive you can be ignored in these types of geneology lists. The Hebrew/Jewish writers also like to use symbolic numbers in their writing and to prove a point. So a lot of these list will be in groups 12 numbers or add up to certain values and so forth. Incidentally, they also use these numbering systems to preserve the written integrity of works when it is copied from text to text. The Jewish Alphabet can be coresponded to numbers to a page fo a document would be added on a line by line basis and a page by page basis to verify that the page was copied correctly...but this is beside the point.

So there can be many more actual generations in between the ones that are listed. Another example is John 8:39:

[ QUOTE ]
They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus *said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not saying that they are in *fact* Abrahams children just that they have a lineage to him.

So any such counting schemes is weak at best. Incedentally it doesn't make it wrong just written a certain way.

-Gryph

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if someone has written this already, but the direct calculation of the genealogy is not a very good calender estimate because there is a Hebrew tradition of ignoring unimportant or less important generations.

For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.
Matt 1:4

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't always mean Ram was the biological father of Amminadab because your offspring in can include people in your line of descent that either thought the same way as you or did something of great importance that should be noted. If you didn't really do anything that was impressive you can be ignored in these types of geneology lists. The Hebrew/Jewish writers also like to use symbolic numbers in their writing and to prove a point. So a lot of these list will be in groups 12 numbers or add up to certain values and so forth. Incidentally, they also use these numbering systems to preserve the written integrity of works when it is copied from text to text. The Jewish Alphabet can be coresponded to numbers to a page fo a document would be added on a line by line basis and a page by page basis to verify that the page was copied correctly...but this is beside the point.

So there can be many more actual generations in between the ones that are listed. Another example is John 8:39:

[ QUOTE ]
They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus *said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not saying that they are in *fact* Abrahams children just that they have a lineage to him.

So any such counting schemes is weak at best. Incedentally it doesn't make it wrong just written a certain way.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best post in the thread so far. Thanks Gryph.

[vulturesrow]

Those are good points, many of which were made in the links I provided you.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Those are good points, many of which were made in the links I provided you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only 50% of your links even worked.

[vulturesrow]

Hmmm, I usually check them in the preview. I'll try again. My apologies.


Geneaology of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm)

[CollinEstes]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says mankind is ~5,000 years old. However, they have found evidence of a settlement in Chile that is 12,000-12,500 years old, and projective points in North America that are 11,000 years old. National Geographic talking about 12k year old settlement and projectile points (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1106_031106_firstamericans.html)

I realize this argument comes up with dinosaurs and geological issues, dealing with the earth being millions or billions of years old. People normally defend the Bible by saying that the 1st week was extra long. This does not apply here. (Since Adam did not start breeding until after Creation Week.)

What defense do Bible believers have for this? This seems like such a blatant error, that I must be missing some key defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well once defense for this is that the Bible states that God created the Earth in 7 days. However it also states that a day in Heaven is like a 1000 years on Earth. So since the second statement is obviously not an exact measure of how a day would be calculated by God but rather that 7 days of creation could in fact mean alot more time than just a 24 hour period or day as we think of it. I believe in the Bible but I do not take it literally, and I don't think it supposed to be taken like that rather it is a guide and collection of parabales that help you to lead a righteous life as defined by Christian beliefs.

This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[Greg J]

Tom Paine: Age of Reason does a pretty fair job too.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[/ QUOTE ]

TEH PWN3D

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[/ QUOTE ]


Couldn't this be interpreted on the molecular level meaning that god was able to make man out the same material he made the earth?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't this be interpreted on the molecular level meaning that god was able to make man out the same material he made the earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Genesis, man was created spontaneously from 'soil' and woman was fashioned in like manner from bone matter, purloined from the man. A rather quizzical way to constructed beings.

I was pointing out the inconsistent conclusion of the previous poster - the evolution of a species takes a god awful amount of time, progressing through various forms and never being in a static condition but always in a state of flux, and thus the very opposite of the way the Lord God is said to go about it in Chapter two of Genesis.

As far as the subject of 'interpretation', I should think that you are free to interpret the Bible in any way you see fit. Even basing your interpretations on whatever evidence you can reconstruct about the making of this most marvelous book. Others that post here on this forum will no doubt take exception to such a heretical stance.


-Zeno

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the subject of 'interpretation', I should think that you are free to interpret the Bible in any way you see fit. Even basing your interpretations on whatever evidence you can reconstruct about the making of this most marvelous book. Others that post here on this forum will no doubt take exception to such a heretical stance.

[/ QUOTE ]



Most theologians recognize the creation story in Genesis as something that shouldnt be literally interpreted. There are other parts of the Bible that are believed to have very specific meanings. Much is left open to personal interpretation.

[CollinEstes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[/ QUOTE ]



I don't really understand how that contradicts what I said. I think you take great liberties with those passages to assume the length of time God took to create man from soil is instantanous by our standards of time.

I think that is why the passage I stated about a day on Earth being LIKE a thousand years in Heaven shows us that our perception of time and the calendar is not necessarily how in applies to God. Now I know that reference in context refers to the after life but I think it is good reason why trying to place God in our time/space constraints is not good reasoning.

[CollinEstes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[/ QUOTE ]

TEH PWN3D

[/ QUOTE ]


Dude are you serious. I think you should be looking for a Video Game or D&D message board with that nonsense. Next you are going to call me a noob.

But let me ask you a question: Do you think TO ever catches a touchdown and gets up and says: "I pwned you".

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
According to Genesis, man was created spontaneously from 'soil' and woman was fashioned in like manner from bone matter, purloined from the man. A rather quizzical way to constructed beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, obviously He created man from "soil", ie. from molecular matter etc. Then once he has one working copy of man, he only needs a small organic sample from him, modify the DNA a bit and create woman. Why create woman brand new from molecular matter again? This is much more energy efficient.

Oh and those Peru settlements are actually vestiges from Earth v 0.99b, also known as Earth Open Beta version.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[/ QUOTE ]

TEH PWN3D

[/ QUOTE ]


Dude are you serious. I think you should be looking for a Video Game or D&D message board with that nonsense. Next you are going to call me a noob.

But let me ask you a question: Do you think TO ever catches a touchdown and gets up and says: "I pwned you".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like someone needs their bottle. Or a level 7 charm spell.

<does Ray Lewis dance>

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[/ QUOTE ]

TEH PWN3D

[/ QUOTE ]


Dude are you serious. I think you should be looking for a Video Game or D&D message board with that nonsense. Next you are going to call me a noob.

But let me ask you a question: Do you think TO ever catches a touchdown and gets up and says: "I pwned you".

[/ QUOTE ]

It's okay, Rudman is sorta a geek /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[/ QUOTE ]

TEH PWN3D

[/ QUOTE ]


Dude are you serious. I think you should be looking for a Video Game or D&D message board with that nonsense. Next you are going to call me a noob.

But let me ask you a question: Do you think TO ever catches a touchdown and gets up and says: "I pwned you".

[/ QUOTE ]

It's okay, Rudman is sorta a geek /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

A "ladies geek" to be exact.

[Shakezula]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought the bible was the word of Christ not his father??

[/ QUOTE ]

They are one and the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

The line reads "I go to your Father and to your God, and to my Father, and to my God"---Christ.

Paraphrased: "I go to my God and to my God." Or: "I go to myself, and myself". That makes no sense. Redundancy from a savior? I think not. Must be something else, if this dog is going to hunt...

The original Hebrew translation contains more meanings than the words "adam", "breathe"---as in "God breathed life into Adam"---and "dust", for example, can convey in English. The word "Father" has other meanings as well. A great amount of meaning is lost in translation...

God > Father > Christ , not "God = Father = Christ"

Jehovah and Lucifer are in a tug-of-war contest, or maybe it was Yaweh and Satan, and I am but the rope. No, wait, there is only one "I am", I can't declare my own "I am-ness", can't even state my own existence...I was created into sin and created flawed. I better be good or else Daddy will punish me. But, He forgives all. "You are bad, but I forgive you"---how divine...

Quite clever, fill a book with many contradictions, thereby giving a person a ton of out's...