|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 13, 2009 16:26:31 GMT
Dragon - too many assumptions for maths to play any part in this, I'm afraid. An 'average age of 54' is based on nothing but the stated length of ONE person's life. It also says nothing about when the next generation was born. Taking a generation as eldest child to eldest child, that gives you anywhere between 15 and 35 years (The mode average is probably somewhere between 20 and 25) depending on when they got married and had children. 54 is a totally incorrect figure because of generational overlap. So even the maths used by the Young Earthers is blatantly inaccurate. I'd also like to point out that Evolutionary theory and Big Bang theory are NOT the same thing nor should the two ever be confused. Evolution is the theory of how biological systems change over time in response to their environment and has nothing whatsoever to say about the origins of the universe. I am honestly baffled as to why so many people seem to keep pushing the two together. The age of the Earth is also not part of Evolutionary theory, of course, being as it deals primarily with geology. Anyways - back to genealogy - the family trees are clearly representative, as ss has said, being as they leave out so much of the human race. While I honestly doubt there were more than a few thousand humans in existence before the flood (Caused by the melting of the ice at the end of the Ice Age, so that we can at least agree there was a flood, though our presumed causes differ ;D), they are STILL not all listed in the family trees. Clear evidence of inaccuracy. *groan* EK, the generations ARE all mentioned. You can follow down from Abraham to Jesus at the beginning of the book of Matthew (yes, the WAY beginning), and as for Adam to Abraham, you have to go from Adam to Noah's sons (That would be Genesis 5, IIRC), then from Noah's son Shem to Abraham (in chapter 11). You come down to a total of 1,914 years between Adam and Abraham. Now, between Adam and Abraham there are exactly 20 generations (feel free to count them, in Genesis 5 and 11), covering a span of almost 2,000 years. That puts the average generation gap at 100 years. So I find it very believable that 42 generations (that's the number between Abraham and Jesus, see Matthew Chapter 1), covering a span of about 2,000 years, could have an average generation gap of about 50 years (sorry, why'd I put it at 54? must've got mixed up with something else, my bad). And like I said, very often the line was carried from one of the younger sons, if not the youngest (Abraham being 100 when fathering Isaac, David being the 8th and youngest son of Jesse, Solomon being one of David's younger sons, Rehoboam being one of Solomon's youngest sons, etc.). This makes perfect sense to me... The two "are always pushed together" because they both have the same agenda: trying to explain the origin of life (and of course, the universe) in a way that doesn't involve a Divine and Supreme Deity. See, when we (Creationists) mention Evolution, we generally are putting together what I stated above into one word; this is, of course, a layman's term. A scientist will differentiate accordingly. The Generations listed don't mention the entire human race, they never were supposed to. IIRC, they only mention the entire human race just after the flood, after that it goes on a bit with the kids and grand-kids of Noah's kids (no kidding), but then it just follows the path that leads to the Patriarchs who were relative to the founding of Israel. And of course, the genealogies of the Kings are mentioned later on in the Bible (when they got their first kings, starting with Saul in the Book of 1st Samuel), AND the genealogy of Jesus Christ is mentioned, and there are a few other genealogies... But aside from just after the flood, they were never supposed to list the entire human race! I really wonder where you got that idea...
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 13, 2009 16:31:06 GMT
[/quote] 130 years from what date? the date he was created, or the date that he ate from the tree of knowledge?[/quote]
Hm... I'll admit, you've got me there... But honestly, I don't think that Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for TOO long, since Cain and Abel were only born after they left the Garden... But still, that IS a very interesting question...
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 13, 2009 16:33:04 GMT
Well thank you. Now, isn't the claim that the descriptions in the bible ARE in fact (!) dinosaurs a pure presumption (a classic hindsight interpretation - hindsight is 20/20 vision! )? Considering the many tales of the ancients (and of not so ancient (and very Christian) ancestors of ours!) on 'monsters' they claim to have seen, those descriptions could be anything. To a man of 1.5 - 1.6 m, which was the average heighth around the Mediterranean in antiquity, a mammoth or a 7 m long crocodile is gigantic - especially when he tells his tale of how he got away - and why he ran... LOL, funny way of putting it. :DThanks for putting some humor here! See the description of Leviathan, a few chapters down.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 13, 2009 17:18:15 GMT
It's Adam's family tree, Dragon. Are we all descended from him or not? If so - that's where the need for the rest of the humanity to be on the tree comes from.
Once again, from Noah, the entirety of humanity is supposed to descend, right? Therefore ANOTHER family tree that should include the entire human race.
So there ARE significant gaps. That at least you must agree with.
It's also a fact that the theory of Evolution is purely about change over time, so lumping it in with Big Bang Theory is disingenuous at best. Not least because 'species change over time' does NOT contradict anything written in the Bible. Some theologians have assumed that everything was created to be perpetually unchanging, but that's not stated nor even implied.
In fact, is it not the case that the Bible explicitly states that humanity HAS changed? - our 'fallen' nature that ss is talking about was not there in the beginning, nor was aging nor death. We changed. That is written. And according to your doctrine, we can change AGAIN by embracing Christ, right? So why the resistance to evolution? A theory, ironically, which states that the Bible may be correct in assuming all of humanity had a single common ancestor...
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 13, 2009 17:26:32 GMT
That reminds me of Erich von Däniken, who interpreted Ezekiel's revelation in Old Testament as a detailed description of a landing spacecraft...
There is probably not a lot you cannot find 'in the bible' - with the more biased (or let's say focused) an eye one looks, the more one finds.
I think that context, purpose of the author, the perceptions of Man in his contemporary environment and a good portion of scepticism - and the confession (or concession), that there are a number of things we simply do not know - should be acknowledged.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 13, 2009 18:13:53 GMT
Hm... I'll admit, you've got me there... But honestly, I don't think that Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for TOO long, since Cain and Abel were only born after they left the Garden... But still, that IS a very interesting question... However before they ate of the apple, there was no death in the garden of eden, and they were innocents. They are also supposed to have named every single creature that god created (bearing in mind that we haven't found every creature that exists on the planet yet...). And every plant (which again we haven't found all of yet). Then there's the fact that adam was alive without eve for a long time. Long enough to find out that there wasn't a suitable companion in all the animals he'd named. Also, without knowledge there is no way that he could have a sense of time either, as to have a sense of time you need to know what time is, and what the units of time are...
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 13, 2009 18:55:58 GMT
If nothing else, avoiding the "fire"... ;D Ah yes , always the fear of something first rather than an enthusiasm for ......what ?
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 14, 2009 0:51:09 GMT
If nothing else, avoiding the "fire"... ;D Ah yes , always the fear of something first rather than an enthusiasm for ......what ? Ever the pessimist KT, I was being flippant... ;D No one know what is going to happen for sure. but the Scripture tells us.. Paul quoting Isaiah 64:4 in the NT at 1 Corinthians 2:9 "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." So no matter what it is...it is gonna be beyon your imagination..
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 14, 2009 9:43:59 GMT
It seems to me that even the "the best" things get old when you get too much of it. One life time of something would get old, an eternity of anything might turn into something less than pleasing.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 14, 2009 12:05:18 GMT
unless it's an eternity of happiness... At which point you probably won't even notice or care...
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 14, 2009 16:55:08 GMT
@ EK: If the Bible were to list every single family descended from Noah until Abraham, that would take a book about as thick as I am tall! Surely you can't expect a COMPLETE listing, that's absurd! Besides, the genealogies listed there (Jesus', the King's, the Patriarch's, and some others) are more than enough of a headache keeping track of. ;D Like I said, there AREN'T gaps when it goes from Adam to Jesus, it gives and unbroken line from Adam to Noah, UNBROKEN from Noah to Abraham, and UNBROKEN from Abraham to Jesus. That's good enough for ANY Creationist, and anyone who reads and believes the Bible. An interesting way of looking at it (although I really wouldn't go connecting those with Evolution)... Well, we just believe Darwinian Evolution to be a big lie, actually, fulfillment of a Bible verse where it says that towards the Biblical Endtime people "will turn away from the truth, and turn unto fables. They shall be ever-learning, yet never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." (it's in Matthew 24) So yeah, in a way, Evolution DOES fulfill something...
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 14, 2009 16:56:06 GMT
@ Glance: Of course, which is why we have to accept things by Faith...
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 14, 2009 17:00:03 GMT
Hm... I'll admit, you've got me there... But honestly, I don't think that Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for TOO long, since Cain and Abel were only born after they left the Garden... But still, that IS a very interesting question... However before they ate of the apple, there was no death in the garden of eden, and they were innocents. They are also supposed to have named every single creature that god created (bearing in mind that we haven't found every creature that exists on the planet yet...). And every plant (which again we haven't found all of yet). Then there's the fact that adam was alive without eve for a long time. Long enough to find out that there wasn't a suitable companion in all the animals he'd named. Also, without knowledge there is no way that he could have a sense of time either, as to have a sense of time you need to know what time is, and what the units of time are... Um, Adam and Eve were created on the same day... He just started feeling lonely after a few hours. What, he was a man you know, I can only imagine how excited he must've felt when he saw Eve for the first time (and all naked too... *whoa*). ;D And likewise, I can also imagine how lonely he felt being the only human being. I don't think he named all the animals in one day, if he did, he probably had some Heavenly Power assisting him.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 14, 2009 17:07:34 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...
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 14, 2009 17:49:40 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...
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 14, 2009 19:38:44 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
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 14, 2009 22:19:25 GMT
unless it's an eternity of happiness... At which point you probably won't even notice or care... Can there be eternal happiness without the reverse? One cannot recognize happiness without the opposite for contrast... In essence , the dual nature of all things would prevent a "one thing" kind of place. in fact hell and heaven are not old concepts compared with the history of the Greeks who's god Hades was the ruler of the underworld, all dead people went there. I think it was Zoroaster that made the distinction between places of Good and Evil , ala heaven and hell.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 14, 2009 23:39:37 GMT
Actually, the Greeks had two places for the dead, as did many if not most of the old religions. I forget the exact criteria, but Greeks could get into the Elysian Fields, too, which was the paradise equivalent.
Zoroaster may have invented Dualism (Having only two deities) but he did not invent the concepts of heaven & hell, which are far older.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 15, 2009 0:43:42 GMT
unless it's an eternity of happiness... At which point you probably won't even notice or care... Can there be eternal happiness without the reverse? One cannot recognize happiness without the opposite for contrast... 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...
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 15, 2009 2:17:20 GMT
Can there be eternal happiness without the reverse? One cannot recognize happiness without the opposite for contrast... 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.
|
|