25 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnaswell seeing that you give great credence to his findings perhaps you would like to detail his chronology and then we may publicly determine and make an evaluation for ourselves.
Bishop James Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.
Do you think you know more about this than him? That you are a better christian? He did extensive research about the chronology adn work backwards in time, using bible as his source. Do you think the bible is wrong?
Shame...
Assertions like , do you think you know more than him, do you think you are better than him shall been treated with the contempt they deserve.
25 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis fellow Urssher is googable. His chronology can be find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
well seeing that you give great credence to his findings perhaps you would like to detail his chronology and then we may publicly determine and make an evaluation for ourselves.
Assertions like , do you think you know more than him, do you think you are better than him shall been treated with the contempt they deserve.
The main part of his chronology is this:
4004 BC - Creation
2348 BC - Noah's Flood
1921 BC - God's call to Abraham
1491 BC - The Exodus from Egypt
1012 BC - Founding of the Temple in Jerusalem
586 BC - Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity
4 BC - Birth of Jesus
I read somewhere that he even put out the time of day with a rather narrow precision. Well, he was inspired by his god and did a quite remarkable work.
[edit]
As I don't belive in the christian religion, I don't find there is nothing for me to know.
But I know some about the christian religion and their followers, and that's the part I find interesting.
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know, he did extensive research of the chronology and genealogy from the bible, and deduced and relied on the holy spirit to get everything right, I suppose. I certainly prayed every day to be adviced and corrected if needed from the allmighty. I don't know, what do you think?
how does he get from the flood to the creation?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau KAgreed. And that swearing upon the Bible is an oath to try to uphold the basic principles of truth an honesty in a big picture sense, not in trying to weasel out of those principles in the loopholes of fact that one is going to find in the Bible.
Most would acknowledge a spiritual/metaphorical reading.
25 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasi think hes talking nonsense. why? simply because you cannot determine that a creative day is a thousand years, thus the assertion that the bible states that the creative days were a thousand years each and that creation took six thousand years is unsubstantiated. we are interested in truth, not what is merely speculated upon. he has made his assertion from an erroneous standpoint and thus has drawn a wrong conclusion. its the same with the trinitarians, they have also adopted a wrong premise and sought to establish it through inference, however, anything based on an assumption is simply castles made of sand and will fall into the sea, eventually. what you might find is that he is speaking of the creation of man, not of the earth and the cosmos etc.
I don't know, he did extensive research of the chronology and genealogy from the bible, and deduced and relied on the holy spirit to get everything right, I suppose. I certainly prayed every day to be adviced and corrected if needed from the allmighty. I don't know, what do you think?
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think he has the same critics towards you. From my point of view it's not more than one christian vew against anothers, both claiming they have the Divine Truth. This is very common within the christian sphere, even to the extent that wars are declared and thousands of lives are destroyed.
i think hes talking nonsense. why? simply because you cannot determine that a creative day is a thousand years, thus the assertion that the bible states that the creative days were a thousand years each and that creation took six thousand years is unsubstantiated. we are interested in truth, not what is merely speculated upon. he has made his asse ...[text shortened]... u might find is that he is speaking of the creation of man, not of the earth and the cosmos etc.
You say that another christian is talking nonsense. Do you mind when other christians are saying that you're talking nonsense? Tooth for tooth, and all that?
Of course noone can say, as a truth, that Earth is only thousands of years old, even million of years old, backed by the bible or not, that's crazy.
The science says that the age of the universe is about 14 billion of years old and earth about 14.6 billion of years old.
But I can accept any other age as a religious truth as long they don't tell that "Science says that...", because it isn't.
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasthe only problem of course is that i can prove that the creative days did not last a thousand years, he has no way of proving that they did. This is not one Christian view against another, it is a mere statement of fact. If they state that i am talking nonsense then they had better be able to substantiate the claim, otherwise its merely an opinion with no basis in truth. Science and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth.
I think he has the same critics towards you. From my point of view it's not more than one christian vew against anothers, both claiming they have the Divine Truth. This is very common within the christian sphere, even to the extent that wars are declared and thousands of lives are destroyed.
You say that another christian is talking nonsense. Do you mi ...[text shortened]... a religious truth as long they don't tell that "Science says that...", because it isn't.
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am pretty sure that he is not saying that the creative days lasted 1000 years. He is saying (if I understand it correctly) that you can work backwards from the birth of Christ all the way to Adam using the genealogical information in the Bible and that time period ammounts to 4000 years. This dates the events described in the first chapter of Genesis to around 4000bc or rougly 6000 years ago.
the only problem of course is that i can prove that the creative days did not last a thousand years, he has no way of proving that they did. This is not one Christian view against another, it is a mere statement of fact. If they state that i am talking nonsense then they had better be able to substantiate the claim, otherwise its merely an opinion ...[text shortened]... e and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth.
He is of course very unlikely to be right.
--- Penguin.
25 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieScience and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth
the only problem of course is that i can prove that the creative days did not last a thousand years, he has no way of proving that they did. This is not one Christian view against another, it is a mere statement of fact. If they state that i am talking nonsense then they had better be able to substantiate the claim, otherwise its merely an opinion ...[text shortened]... e and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth.
And as long as the science doesn't contradict your interpretation of religious truth.
I'd like to see a scientific paper that suggests humans only appearing on the earth 6,00yrs ago. Do you have a link to one Rob?! 😉
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by Penguinyes this is more probable, for it can be chronologically determined when the creation of Adam took place, but not the actual creation of the physical universe etc.
I am pretty sure that he is [b]not saying that the creative days lasted 1000 years. He is saying (if I understand it correctly) that you can work backwards from the birth of Christ all the way to Adam using the genealogical information in the Bible and that time period ammounts to 4000 years. This dates the events described in the first chapter of Genesi ...[text shortened]... d 4000bc or rougly 6000 years ago.
He is of course very unlikely to be right.
--- Penguin.[/b]
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieScience is not about what we think is more probable. You have to back it up with science. If you cannot, it's not science, even if it happens to be true.
yes this is more probable, for it can be chronologically determined when the creation of Adam took place, but not the actual creation of the physical universe etc.
Science and religion cannot mix, you know that. If your religious belief is that it can, it's your religious belief, it's not a scientific one.
We've had this discussion before, and it's a dead end for you. After 200 postings you get cranky, you avoid questions that shows where your fault in your reasoning, and after that you start with personal attacks. We know that, we've had it numerous times before. Why bring it up again?
If two christians have one opinion each, both different, in the same matter, both of them cannot be right.
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobshow me a piece of evidence that suggest we have evolved from apes in the relatively small period of the last eighty thousand years or so and i shall show you a theory based on postulation, dogma, unsubstantiated assertions and lack of evidence.
[b]Science and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth
And as long as the science doesn't contradict your interpretation of religious truth.
I'd like to see a scientific paper that suggests humans only appearing on the earth 6,00yrs ago. Do you have a link to one Rob?! 😉[/b]
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes science is not what we think is probable, but in many instances that is indeed what it is. Would you like me to substantiate my assertion with the lack of evidence for transitory beings? You may look at any biology text book, and there you have it, assertions based on nothing but postulation, dogma a lack of palaeontological evidence and in some instances downright fraud, in fact, in many instances the evidence runs contrary to the theory, therefore new versions of the theory are adapted to accommodate this lack of harmony, so please Fabian, you had best be careful with what you term science, for it may be nothing of the sort.
Science is not about what we think is more probable. You have to back it up with science. If you cannot, it's not science, even if it happens to be true.
Science and religion cannot mix, you know that. If your religious belief is that it can, it's your religious belief, it's not a scientific one.
We've had this discussion before, and it's a dead end ...[text shortened]... s have one opinion each, both different, in the same matter, both of them cannot be right.