|
|
#1
06-26-2005, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?
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
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. 
|
|
#2
06-26-2005, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?
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
|
|
#3
06-26-2005, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?
[ 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.
|
|
#4
06-26-2005, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?
[ 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)
|
|
#5
06-26-2005, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?
[ 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.
|
|
#7
06-26-2005, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?
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.
|
|
#8
06-26-2005, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?
[ 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 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.
|
|
#9
06-26-2005, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?
clearly it's just a conspiracy by "scientists" to make themselves more important and take advantage of the rest of us.
|
|
#10
06-26-2005, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?
[ 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"?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
