|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 15, 2009 19:32:26 GMT
Dragon: all you have to do is look at the number of generations vrs the popn of the world to see the gaps that MUST be there. By your own admission, the genealogies are not designed to be accurate - else, yes, they WOULD take up a heck of a lot of space. And 50 years for a generation is still far too great, BTW. Generational overlap brings it a lot closer to 20, so you can at least HALVE the age of the Earth as surmised by Young Earthers if they are going on 50 as the standard ballpark figure. That makes for about 3000 years which is a bit silly, don't you think? We have proof of human civilisations going back to long before that... EK, the 50-years-old gap between each generation, AND the 62 generations I keep mentioning, are the bloodline from Adam to Jesus. This particular bloodline is unbroken, and accurate. And 50 years is nowhere NEAR to great, Noah fathered Shem at 500. And like I've said in almost all my previous posts, many times it was one of the last sons who carried the bloodline down to eventually reach Jesus (many of these men continued to father children towards the end of their lives)... And yes, the CONCRETE proofs (like, trees, deserts, etc.) of the age of the Earth go back to about 4,400 years ago. This is when we believe the Great Flood happened, and there are 1,656 years between Adam and the Great Flood (which occurred when Noah was 600 years old). This makes sense for a slightly older than 6,000 year Earth, + a few years/decades/centuries (no more than a few centuries) depending on how long Adam was in the Garden (because, as DPR put forth, man only started dying after eating the forbidden fruit), and exactly when the Flood occurred.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 15, 2009 19:36:55 GMT
@ Everyone who asked about Heaven: Well, I'm definitely NOT going to float around on a cloud playing a harp (you can if you want to, ss, but that's not for me ). There's going to be plenty to keep us busy! For starters, during the Millennium we're going to ruling over the World with Jesus (we're going to be His representatives on Earth). Remember the parable of the talents? And then, who knows what'll happen after the New Heaven and New Earth (after the battle of Gog and Magog)? To quote ss quoting Paul quoting Isaiah "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." And yes DPR, time as we know it will be no more! So we probably will lose track eventually... With all due respect ...LOL Believe it or not, with the exception of the "playing harps on clouds" (which comes from popular culture), just about everything else I mentioned is backed by Scripture!
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 15, 2009 19:45:55 GMT
With all due respect ...LOL Believe it or not, with the exception of the "playing harps on clouds" (which comes from popular culture), just about everything else I mentioned is backed by Scripture! Backed by Scripture..??...it only applies to those who believe it Dragon...."They" don't...we do.... Here is a short article that makes perfect sense, it is just that to believe it means that the Bible has merit, and "most" unbelievers would rather cut out their tongue than admit that.. ;D " Is the existence of dinosaur fossils embedded deep in the earth clear proof that the earth is countless ages old and that life must have evolved? That depends upon what standard of knowledge you accept about the past. No one can travel back in time to make firsthand observations of what things were like, so we must make basic assumptions about what had to happen. Either you assume that natural forces were sufficient to have produced all life over vast ages or you assume that they were not sufficient and that God must have done it as the Bible says. Science cannot provide final answers to this question, since the same data could be "explained" by different theories or made to fit a favorite theory. So what you are left with is either faith in natural forces or faith in God. The existence of dinosaur fossils does not by any means invalidate history as found in the Bible. Vast ages are not necessary for the formation of the earth's sedimentary rocks and the fossils within them. The Flood of Noah, along with other primeval catastrophes, could have formed the rock layers quite quickly, and a global change of weather following the Flood could have led to the extinction of all reptiles programmed for survival in warmer and wetter environments. The fact that fossil bones are found jumbled together in great heaps argues for their deposition during the Flood. But if dinosaurs became extinct relatively recently, doesn't that mean that man and dinosaur lived at the same time? Yes, it does, and there is evidence for that both from the Bible and from other books. Legends of men confronting dinosaur-like creatures abound in folktales from around the world. The many tales of a gallant warrior slaying a mighty dragon may not be all folk fiction after all. Many people may not realize that the book of Job mentions two beasts whose descriptions sound very much like dinosaurs. In Job 40, we read of behemoth with its tail like that of a massive cedar. In chapter 41, we find leviathan – a dragon-like creature that may have been a stegosaurus, judging from verse 15: "His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together …" Dinosaurs are no surprise to the Bible. We need not bow to the evolutionists' view that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and that the Bible's account of the past is false."
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 15, 2009 19:55:53 GMT
You don't think your time on this "3rd rock from the sun" is enough of the reverse to make you appreciate the other. Go live in Darfur for awhile and see if those folks don't have a concept of the reverse of happiness to where they would just ask for some RELIEF ....and heaven would be simply asking too much.....they would be happy with clean water and food. You seem to live to far in your own mind to comprehend some basic things....could be wrong I guess... You talk about love and acceptance and respect and such, so you surely ought to know that this world is a crap hole, the human race is corrupt......INCLUDING YOU AND ME....and there is no future here....you ARE going to die, and your hope for anything after that seems to be lacking.....(at least from my view)...and yes, that does make me sad......if there is no hope...like the professing atheists.....isn't this simply a wonderful life with absolutely NOTHING to look forward to..?? Why bother getting up in the morning. ..... This doesn't even address the fact that the REAL alternate is HELL.....not just a bad time... I know about suffering a bit, for example this past week I pawned my car title at a 315% interest rate to buy food for my family.....at least I have a car to pawn I guess, it was given to me though. I do understand the desire for a "better place" , alas I chalk it up as another lie. Much like the lies we are told about many aspects of our lives. I view this life as HELL sometimes , though it is a matter of choice , my perspective can change with my will , optimism or not. I believe the corruption you speak of is the SELF and the FEAR that goes along with the comfortable sustainment if said SELF. It is the distinction , the ego , that causes corruption , born out of insecurity and a desire to maintain power and control. In an attempt to advance the SELF , man will victimize others to assure his security. As much as I find this condition to be undesirable , equally I understand the desire for a place like heaven. To me it is the complete acceptance of this condition (mans corruption) that perpetuates the myth that this condition is irreversible. To accept the premise of original sin is to give up and accept evil/ corruption without applying appropriate responsibility to mankind , not the devil, not some force beyond. Original sin allows man to give up , to concede that all hope for life is worthless. Man taking responsibility for his "corruption"/ego insecurity will lead to man making more humane less ego driven choices and perhaps actually reverse the condition which is right now accepted by orthodox Christianity as just part of his "nature". When in fact that myth is an excuse for man to continue his selfish ego driven mania. Well, actually Christianity recognizes that man's nature is evil, corrupt, sinful, etc. But we don't just sit there and accept it and live with it. We believe that if we have Jesus in our hearts, He gives us the capability to love others with His love! And His love has no limits, or boundaries. This is what Paul talked about when he said "The Love of Christ constraineth me." We take responsibility for our sinful nature, by always trying to let Jesus' love guide our every action. If you really think about it, love could solve just about any and all human problems (like, fear of the future, depression, a feeling like life isn't worth living, etc.). Of course, it has to be TRUE love, and I personally believe that Jesus' Love is the truest and greatest love of all. This is why I live: and this is why every true Christian lives. A true Christian is someone who follows Christ's teachings (the core of which is Loving God and Others), and I'm deeply saddened by the fact that so many "Christians" do not follow this. Many of them think that just going to Church on Sunday for one hour makes them a Christian. Well, that's what I call a "Churchian," and this is not the same as being a Christian! And I guarantee you this: a true Christian will have a sense of fulfillment, peace of mind, happiness, joy, and a lot of love for others, including a real desire to go out and tell other people about the wonderful Love of Jesus! Of course, we (true Christians) NEVER force this on anybody, but we offer people to accept Jesus in their hearts, we can explain what His Love has done for us personally, we can cry for them, etc. But it all depends on the person's choice. If you want Jesus, okay, it's your choice! If not, okay, it's your choice! Ultimately, it all boils down to the choices you make throughout your life, and your outlook on life itself in general. But having Jesus is what really makes the difference for me, personally.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 15, 2009 19:58:41 GMT
Believe it or not, with the exception of the "playing harps on clouds" (which comes from popular culture), just about everything else I mentioned is backed by Scripture! Backed by Scripture..??...it only applies to those who believe it Dragon...."They" don't...we do.... Here is a short article that makes perfect sense, it is just that to believe it means that the Bible has merit, and "most" unbelievers would rather cut out their tongue than admit that.. ;D " Is the existence of dinosaur fossils embedded deep in the earth clear proof that the earth is countless ages old and that life must have evolved? That depends upon what standard of knowledge you accept about the past. No one can travel back in time to make firsthand observations of what things were like, so we must make basic assumptions about what had to happen. Either you assume that natural forces were sufficient to have produced all life over vast ages or you assume that they were not sufficient and that God must have done it as the Bible says. Science cannot provide final answers to this question, since the same data could be "explained" by different theories or made to fit a favorite theory. So what you are left with is either faith in natural forces or faith in God. The existence of dinosaur fossils does not by any means invalidate history as found in the Bible. Vast ages are not necessary for the formation of the earth's sedimentary rocks and the fossils within them. The Flood of Noah, along with other primeval catastrophes, could have formed the rock layers quite quickly, and a global change of weather following the Flood could have led to the extinction of all reptiles programmed for survival in warmer and wetter environments. The fact that fossil bones are found jumbled together in great heaps argues for their deposition during the Flood. But if dinosaurs became extinct relatively recently, doesn't that mean that man and dinosaur lived at the same time? Yes, it does, and there is evidence for that both from the Bible and from other books. Legends of men confronting dinosaur-like creatures abound in folktales from around the world. The many tales of a gallant warrior slaying a mighty dragon may not be all folk fiction after all. Many people may not realize that the book of Job mentions two beasts whose descriptions sound very much like dinosaurs. In Job 40, we read of behemoth with its tail like that of a massive cedar. In chapter 41, we find leviathan – a dragon-like creature that may have been a stegosaurus, judging from verse 15: "His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together …" Dinosaurs are no surprise to the Bible. We need not bow to the evolutionists' view that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and that the Bible's account of the past is false." Yes, but I was just making a point that my sense of humor in that post was "Biblical Humor." ;D Of course, this article states the obvious (at least to us Creationist Christians)... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 15, 2009 20:00:43 GMT
False assumption. There are many stories of how the world (and life) came to be. It's by no means a binary argument. Current scientific theory is closest to Hinduism, IIRC, which is somewhat ironic as Hinduism is by far the oldest religion currently extant.
***
Dragon - Generations are determined from parent to FIRST child, not last. So 50 years is still wildly inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 15, 2009 20:09:35 GMT
EK - What I'm calling a generation here is "from Adam to Seth" or "From Jesse to David" I don't mean a generation in the proper sense, I mean a generation as pertaining to the genealogy of Jesus (a.k.a Jesse, David, Solomon would be 3 generations, even though David was Jesse's 8th son and Solomon was David's 3rd son with Abigail, who was his 3rd wife) I hope I make myself clear...
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 15, 2009 22:26:13 GMT
EK - What I'm calling a generation here is "from Adam to Seth" or "From Jesse to David" I don't mean a generation in the proper sense, I mean a generation as pertaining to the genealogy of Jesus (a.k.a Jesse, David, Solomon would be 3 generations, even though David was Jesse's 8th son and Solomon was David's 3rd son with Abigail, who was his 3rd wife) I hope I make myself clear... Just a technical correction there...Abigail was David's 3rd wife, the widow of Naham, but was the mother of "Daniel". Bathsheba, the widow of Uriah the Hittite (whom David had murdered) was the mother of Solomon. The first child died because of the adulterous relationship by David and the killing of Uriah. The next child was Solomon.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 15, 2009 22:49:07 GMT
Dragon - you can't count generations like that if what you are counting is from first born to first born, which in turns of genealogies it is. You are counting generations born into undated family trees and trying to estimate how far into the past an event occurred by that method.
Not only is that a very unreliable method to begin with, but you are using a generational estimate that says every human ON that tree since the dawn of time waited around 50 years to have their first child.
Even if there were a couple of late developers, how credible does that really sound, to you?
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 16, 2009 2:46:53 GMT
The ego /distinction is what separates man from God , the "I" self, when we continually validate the self or the "I" we always make a distinction between God and man , a false distinction. In reality we are all ONE thing.
Here is a little play on words hobby of mine , notice how the addition of the letter "I" changes things.. decide 1 a : to make a final choice or judgment about <decide what to do> b : to select as a course of action —used with an infinitive <decided to go> c : to infer on the basis of evidence : conclude <they decided that he was right> 2 : to bring to a definitive end <one blow decided the fight> 3 : to induce to come to a choice <her pleas decided him to help> deicide 1 : the act of killing a divine being or a symbolic substitute of such a being 2 : the killer or destroyer of a god
I , the self , the "I" takes the word Decide to Deicide , it is the self or "I" that separates man from God , and kills God. When we remove the "I" we indeed DECIDE to become one with God beyond the self and I
It is the trick of religion in the interest of protecting their power that perpetuates the myth that man is apart from God and each other.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 16, 2009 9:03:04 GMT
Dragon - you can't count generations like that if what you are counting is from first born to first born, which in turns of genealogies it is. You are counting generations born into undated family trees and trying to estimate how far into the past an event occurred by that method. Not only is that a very unreliable method to begin with, but you are using a generational estimate that says every human ON that tree since the dawn of time waited around 50 years to have their first child. Even if there were a couple of late developers, how credible does that really sound, to you? *groans* EK, I'm just counting it the way it's written down, not by the technical term of "generations." Here, I'll show you exactly what it says: The book of the generation (genealogy, not the modern technical term of generation which goes from eldest to eldest son) of Jesus Christ, the son (descendant) of David, the son of Abraham. MAT.1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob... (skipping a bit) ...Jesse begat David the king (see? And David was his 8th son); and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias (yep, again, Solomon was one of David's younger sons. And thanks ss, my apologies, I was typing at about 3 A:M so I was pretty fuzzy )...And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (excerpts of Matthew 1:1-17) See, what they're calling a generation here is from one man to his son, and that son to his son, etc. NOT always to his eldest son, and in fact, usually to one of his YOUNGER sons (as I gave you the examples above). Of course, now the meaning of the word "generation" has changed. But the Biblical way can make more sense. For example, my Father is the 2nd son in his family, so if I could trace my genealogy back by the 1900's, it'd read "Jacques begat Pierre, Pierre begat Andre." Now, the Bible would say that's 3 generations IF it's tracing my genealogy (which in this case, it is). Of course, my Dad is the 2nd son, and I'm the 3rd son in My Family, so the modern term of "generation" would pass through my Uncle, thereby reading: "Jacques begat Serge, and Serge begat Julian." Of course, that'd be pretty stupid if you're trying to trace MY genealogy, and just trace cousin's, wouldn't it? Hope this helps explain! And BTW, in the book of Genesis, those men were all old when they had their kid who carried the line to Jesus (from before the Flood, the eldest is Noah, who begat Shem at 500 years of age, and the youngest Enoch (son of Jared, the one who was carried to Heaven), who begat Methuselah at 65 years of age. After that, many were still old (For example, Abraham begat Isaac at 100 years of age), so if you trust the Bible (which I DO), it makes PERFECT sense.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 16, 2009 9:06:35 GMT
The ego /distinction is what separates man from God , the "I" self, when we continually validate the self or the "I" we always make a distinction between God and man , a false distinction. In reality we are all ONE thing. Here is a little play on words hobby of mine , notice how the addition of the letter "I" changes things.. decide 1 a : to make a final choice or judgment about <decide what to do> b : to select as a course of action —used with an infinitive <decided to go> c : to infer on the basis of evidence : conclude <they decided that he was right> 2 : to bring to a definitive end <one blow decided the fight> 3 : to induce to come to a choice <her pleas decided him to help> deicide 1 : the act of killing a divine being or a symbolic substitute of such a being 2 : the killer or destroyer of a god I , the self , the "I" takes the word Decide to Deicide , it is the self or "I" that separates man from God , and kills God. When we remove the "I" we indeed DECIDE to become one with God beyond the self and I It is the trick of religion in the interest of protecting their power that perpetuates the myth that man is apart from God and each other. True Christianity brings us close to God and each other, because the core of true Christianity is to Love God and others. But true Christianity is not a Religion (all thanks to what is called "Christianity" today), it is a Faith. Religion divides people, Faith brings people closer together.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 16, 2009 9:18:29 GMT
@ EK: The AVERAGE age would be about mid-fifties (or perhaps 60's, actually). But you see, since the older patriarchs begat (I'm starting to really like this word, "begat") their sons at older ages (Noah 500, Methuselah 187, Lamech 182, etc.) this makes up for the younger generations "begatting " their sons at younger ages. Yes, I acknowledge that the average age for "begatting" the sons later became much less than 100, the youngest I can find is Nahor begat Terah at 29 years of age (Terah begat Abraham at 70 years of age, though, and Abraham begat Isaac at 100 years of age... ok, enough digging for now). Bottom line: If you believe in the Bible, than the genealogy of Jesus Christ makes perfect sense for tracing back to a young Earth.
@ Kilg: A Religion is usually made up of a whole bunch of regulations and traditions, a Faith is what the people in (or not in) a certain Religion believe (this is the definition of Faith vs. Religion I'm using in my previous post).
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 16, 2009 11:51:16 GMT
Dragon - assuming 500 years is reasonable for a generation for the first 14, which you seem to think it is, does that not give you an Earth that is 7000 years old already, before you even get to the succeeding 14 generations?
This just drives home what I'm saying: you can't make up a random number as the age of the Earth based on some very unclear genealogies that give no dates of any kind.
The whole 'Young Earth' thing is simply not Biblical.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 16, 2009 18:47:02 GMT
just following up on what Kil has already said.
In the bible does it not say that god is in all things?
If this is true (which it being in the bible it must be otherwise god is a liar), then god must already be in us. If god is already in us, then we are in god as god surrounds us. Therefore we must be god.
Personally I think that the gods aren't in everything, in the same way that we are not in the things that we create. People that see what we have created can see that we created them, but we are not in those things. (I've said this before) The gods have given us one great gift, and that is the gift of free will. All other things come out of that gift, everything we create, do say, and think. But equally we are like children in that we have so much more to learn than we already know... And one of those things we need to learn is responsiblity... As in taking responsibility for our own actions rather than saying the devil made me do it, or I did it because I was born in sin.
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 16, 2009 19:16:24 GMT
just following up on what Kil has already said. In the bible does it not say that god is in all things? If this is true (which it being in the bible it must be otherwise god is a liar), then god must already be in us. If god is already in us, then we are in god as god surrounds us. Therefore we must be god.
Personally I think that the gods aren't in everything, in the same way that we are not in the things that we create. People that see what we have created can see that we created them, but we are not in those things. (I've said this before) The gods have given us one great gift, and that is the gift of free will. All other things come out of that gift, everything we create, do say, and think. But equally we are like children in that we have so much more to learn than we already know... And one of those things we need to learn is responsiblity... As in taking responsibility for our own actions rather than saying the devil made me do it, or I did it because I was born in sin. We are Gods will manifesting , like the fingers on a great hand. i beg to differ also on the idea you advance about not being "in the things we create". We are in everything we create , even a piece of art , one puts their heart and vision into what one creates. Then when thinking about ones children, no question those children are very much a part of their creator/parents.
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 16, 2009 22:52:09 GMT
It has been said that the serpent had spoken only of sympathy and wisdom to mankind.
Serpent= Repents.
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 17, 2009 1:03:36 GMT
@dpr, the will is not free, my will is to levitate , gravity prevents my will , thus not free. We have limited choices not really "freewill".
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 17, 2009 5:01:36 GMT
Dragon - assuming 500 years is reasonable for a generation for the first 14, which you seem to think it is, does that not give you an Earth that is 7000 years old already, before you even get to the succeeding 14 generations? This just drives home what I'm saying: you can't make up a random number as the age of the Earth based on some very unclear genealogies that give no dates of any kind. The whole 'Young Earth' thing is simply not Biblical. EK, 500 was just Noah, most of the other pre-flood people were around 100 something, I'll give you a list: Adam begat Seth: 130 years old Seth begat Enos: 105 years old Enos begat Cainan: 90 years old Cainan begat Mahalaleel: 70 years old Mahalaleel begat Jared: 65 years old Jared begat Enoch: 162 years old Enoch begat Methuselah: 65 years old Methuselah begat Lamech: 187 years old Lamech begat Noah: 182 years old Noah begat Shem: 500 years old TOTAL: 1,656 years Now, the Bible says that when the Flood came, Noah was 600 years old. So that adds up to a grand total of 1,756 years of pre-flood history (minus the time that Adam was in the Garden of Eden, thanks for that reminder DPR!). I'm not making up anything EK, I'm just going "by the book" and seeing the logic of it. Using the data recorded in the Bible, it makes perfect sense to the most brilliant Christian Mathematician. Of course, if you don't believe in the Bible's authenticity then you really ought to think this is a bunch of vague baloney (NOT my opinion), but as for me, I accept the Bible as being true. Therefore, I try to see the logic of a young Earth, and it makes perfect sense! Naturally however, a 6,000 year estimate would based on the assumption that Adam and Eve weren't in the Garden for TOO long, but this part would have to be assumed by us, because the Bible doesn't record how long they were in the Garden. That's why some "Young Earthers" put the Earth's age at a bit older than 6,000, anywhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years (although I honestly don't think Adam and Eve were in the Garden anywhere NEAR that long). A lot depends on the way you look at it, but honestly, the Bible DOES make sense. EDIT: I know the Bible a LOT better than you (no offense), so how can you tell me whether it's Biblical or not? Honestly, it IS Biblical. Especially if you add up the dates from later on in the Bible, and the mentions of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Tyre, etc. Of course, it's not going to say anywhere in the Bible EXACTLY how old the Earth is (then we wouldn't have to believe it by Faith anymore), but adding up the generations makes a Young Earth make perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 17, 2009 8:32:51 GMT
You certainly DO know the Bible far better than I do, Dragon. I am, however, detecting a certain wavering in the mathematical credibility of your argument (And for now we'll ignore the credibility or otherwise of the Bible of a source, which is, as you say, a matter of faith). If 1,656 years gets you to Shem (And the 1,756 is a pure irrelevance as you are counting generations) how does the next set of generations with a faster generational turnover get you to the 4,000 you need to hit year zero on the Gregorian calendar?
Have you actually done the adding up yourself at any point?
|
|