Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do You Believe the World is only 6.000 years old?
No sensible, educated adult believes this.
Personally, I don't believe the 6000 year old scenario but to say "educated?" We can only be educated to the extent of world knowledge. What about all the things we yet don't know or understand? Dr's once thought bleeding an individual was beneficial and had no concept of bacteria, just as society will look back on us many years later and see many things we believe were not correct either. So knowledge is relative to one's current existence. As far as the 6000 year old belief, the Bible doesn't specifically say this, contrary to fundamental belief. There are clues to the real story all through the Bible and other ancient texts that most likely tell the real story.....
Remember that age old question "What came first the chicken or the egg?". Well clearly the bible says the chicken came first. God also created the trees fully formed and organic matter in various degrees of decay to sustain them underneath.
Do you know what it also clearly states? It states clearly that the Earth is fixed and does not move. How's that working out?
Personally, I don't believe the 6000 year old scenario but to say "educated?" We can only be educated to the extent of world knowledge. What about all the things we yet don't know or understand? Dr's once thought bleeding an individual was beneficial and had no concept of bacteria, just as society will look back on us many years later and see many things we believe were not correct either. So knowledge is relative to one's current existence. As far as the 6000 year old belief, the Bible doesn't specifically say this, contrary to fundamental belief. There are clues to the real story all through the Bible and other ancient texts that most likely tell the real story.....
Personally, I'll take the word of geologists/scientists for the "real story" of the age of the Earth. And I'll read the bible when I want to read about primitive Middle Easterners' creation myths.
Personally, I don't believe the 6000 year old scenario but to say "educated?" We can only be educated to the extent of world knowledge. What about all the things we yet don't know or understand? Dr's once thought bleeding an individual was beneficial and had no concept of bacteria, just as society will look back on us many years later and see many things we believe were not correct either. So knowledge is relative to one's current existence. As far as the 6000 year old belief, the Bible doesn't specifically say this, contrary to fundamental belief. There are clues to the real story all through the Bible and other ancient texts that most likely tell the real story.....
No it has not. As we get closer to the modern era the support for aspects of the bible grow. Pre 10th Century however has very little support archaeologically. Once you go from there you have complementary sources that confirm king lists and certain biblical narratives. The Moabite rebellion and the overthrowing of Jehoram being the most prominent discoveries. The issue is they both condradict the biblical tale as do other ones. We know there is a mention of David, but there is no writing from his time to confirm his presence, and any support of a large kingdom at his lifespan is very thin. Most of it based on the works of handful of archaeologists who don't have the support of broader community.
So your argument is that because we lack archaeological evidence from 12 thousand years ago the bible must be fables? How much evidence do you expect to find? Israel at it's height of power was a regional power who could defend itself from regional threats. It never buried it's history in hidden tombs like the Egyptians. Israel wrote it's history down and the bible represents copies of what has been preserved and passed down.
I don't know what conflict the Moabite narrative has with the Israelite historical books. That said; I also don't know why you would presume the Moabite narrative to be true and the bible wrong. Compare if you will the near history taught in an Israeli school today and the history taught in the West Bank or Syria. How about compare an American history book to a Japanese history book concerning the events surrounding World War II.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
If you go further back past Kings there is no evidence to support the tales written. There ignore the socio political realities of the time. Which is odd because the biblical tales in kings often have contemporary sources confirming some of the events. Very odd that they would be so excellent at writing about the invasion of Israel and Judah by The Assyrians, but forget to mention the invasion of the land by the Egyptians in 1207, or the collapse of Bronze age culture. The latter being a major event of the time who's effects brought down 3 Empires. Then of course there are things completely made up such as the conquest which has absolutely zero support among credible archaeologists. Most of the cities listen as conquered weren't even inhabited in the time period mentioned *Jericho being the prime one*, and the data for a large scale migration into Palestine is non existent. You have very small agrarian communities in the western hills surrounding Jerusalem and the Jordan valley, which show no changes but through gradual population growth over 2 centuries. Strangely enough their pottery is just a less garish version of Canaanite pottery and they carried over the same dislike of pork. That which is course eventually found it's way into the religious views of the Jews. These both show an obvious connection to the broader culture of the city states though.
You seem to be referring to the time of Judges. The book takes place when there was no kingdom; Just a collection of tribes that were united by a religion and ancestry. Judges records the account of a handful of tribal leaders who would temporarily unite these tribes from time to time to push back from the seemingly constant raids from the surrounding tribes/nations.
The Egyptian raids in 1207 probably weren't mentioned because no "Judge" at the time rose up to fight against them. If they only came once they probably weren't as significant to the Israeli mind as the more persistent threats from regional foes anyways.
Perhaps there was a musical group during this period that had a #1 hit with a song about "the dawning of the age of iron... the age of iron.. la laaa". Unfortunately we have no surviving copy of the single. Seriously though, Judges gives us the history of "judges" that God would raise up from time to time when the Israeli people would cry out to Him for help. It makes no claim to be a complete history of the region or the events that were going on around them.
Concerning Jericho what you have read and I have read seems to differ. Perhaps different archaeologists have come to different conclusions based on what has been uncovered. Is there even a consensus that it has been found?
The conquest of Canaan as recorded in Joshua consists of the destruction of a few cities that held control over the agricultural land around them. They took the territory they needed by force. The rest was still inhabited by the locals that had lived there since back in the time of Jacob. From then Israel slowly took on more of the territory as their population grew. Israel never came to populate the whole territory God said was theirs. The gradual population growth of the people of Israel you say archaeologists have observed through their digs seems to jive with what we read in scriptures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
Most New Testament scholars believe it was a year not three. John is the only Gospel who makes the claim and John is considered the least historically accurate.
What your saying is that most New Testament scholars who don't believe in the historical accuracy of the book of John believe that Jesus' ministry lasted only one year. Yah I can see that being true. I tend to believe the ones that don't discount parts of scriptures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
And does that stop religious believers of today winning converts? People often believe what they want to with lots of evidence, little evidence, or zero evidence. The very defintion of faith is believing without seeing in the face of opposition .It's also a dubious view that there would have been anyone to refute the stories since the early churches growth was centered in the Greek area of the world, far from Judea.
I agree that faith doesn't require evidence. But we are not talking about faith but, events that were witnessed by believers and non believers alike. The non believers left no record of the denial of events but, rather denied the conclusion that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The miracles that accompanied Jesus' ministry were incredible and numerous. If they were lies then they would have been revealed as lies by those who were there.
Simply put: You don't tell a big lie in front of the people who can refute it if you want to be believed. Successful cons don't work like that.
You also don't tell a lie and willing die rather than recant. Sure people die for what they believe in all the time but, not to hold on to a lie. It would be illogical. We know by the "church fathers" that followed after the "eye witnesses" that that is exactly what happened. We also have them record of them dying in faith having believed the eye witnesses testimonies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
If they never saw him to become believers then how could they never deny what they didn't see ?
We are talking about the thousands who witnessed Jesus' ministry but never left the comfort of their Jewish religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
Nope, it's growth was very very slow. Which is why it took 300 years to become a major force in the Empire. The religious leaders in Jerusalem didn't give a fig about the early Christians There were little more than an irritant to the populace. The reason Jewish leaders didn't write about Jesus is because he was unimportant to them. He was an apocalyptic preacher executed for sedition in first century Judea. That wasn't exactly a rare thing at the time.
Wrong. The first church was located in Jerusalem and it grew rapidly. You really have to discount the whole New Testament to deny that. The book of Acts gives strong evidence of the Jerusalem church's influence. It's strong Jewish influence lasted into the second century. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD its influence did begin to wain.
Christian persecutions by the Romans began under Nero in 64 AD. He blamed them for a fire which burned a chunk of Rome. The Emperor Domitian{81 to96 AD} also persecuted Christians demanding they renounce their faith or die. This continued into the second century with churches having to meet in secret for fear of discovery. If Christianity was a small sect why so much effort to suppress it?
Are you familiar with Redshift? If at any time in history the speed of light had changed, we would be able to see the effect in the light spectrum, specifically expanding toward the red light end of the spectrum. We simply do not see that Furthermore, for God to allow the light from stars millions of light years away to reach earth instantly, he would need to increase the speed of light millions-fold. Using the formula E=MC square, if the speed of light had sped up that much, or even significantly less, the energy from the sun would cook the Earth instantly.
Again you are thinking "evolution" rather than "creation". When a master painter paints a sunset scene along the sea shore. He doesn't stop with the sun but also shows its rays interacting with the water.
When Hollywood determines to produce a movie it first produces a complete set for the movie it wants to make. After that it brings in the actors and starts rolling film. On the seventh day when God rested the creation was complete and functional with the actors in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
BTW, the Bible states that the moon, stars, and sun were created AFTER the Earth. We know this was not the case.
Again your thinking "evolution" rather than "creation" although you used the word "creation". When the Master painter paints a sea side sunset he isn't obliged to paint the sun first before he paints the rays reflecting off the water.
There might be a reason for that, if you consider it objectively for a moment.
I'm curious about something... has any of that archaeological spade work ever uncovered the massive layer of sediment that would have been deposited over the entire Earth's surface by a worldwide flood?
If so, where is it? If not, why isn't it there? If the flood was only a few thousand years ago, that sediment layer should be literally everywhere, just a few feet below the surface in most places. It's impossible to have an ocean without leaving sediment at the bottom of it after it dries up. Show me that worldwide sediment layer, and I'll buy your flood.
It is really difficult for me to keep up with so many conversations. This isn't the only thread I have an interest in either so, don't expect me to answer a myriad of your questions. I will however answer this one in two words: "sedimentary rock".
Again your thinking "evolution" rather than "creation" although you used the word "creation". When the Master painter paints a sea side sunset he isn't obliged to paint the sun first before he paints the rays reflecting off the water.
This is so true and it amazes me that people still think this way. There is natural way for water to be chemically converted into fermented grapes. Therefore, it is impossible for a natural process to produce such an effect. However, if God exists, He is a supernatural being that can function outside of natural laws. He does not need to plant a seed to create an oak tree, He simply creates a full-grown oak tree at will.
There exists no reason to believe that God requires a natural process to work in.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
This is so true and it amazes me that people still think this way. There is natural way for water to be chemically converted into fermented grapes. Therefore, it is impossible for a natural process to produce such an effect. However, if God exists, He is a supernatural being that can function outside of natural laws. He does not need to plant a seed to create an oak tree, He simply creates a full-grown oak tree at will.
There exists no reason to believe that God requires a natural process to work in.
There exist absolutely no reason to believe that a natural process requires a god to be involved.
This is so true and it amazes me that people still think this way. There is natural way for water to be chemically converted into fermented grapes. Therefore, it is impossible for a natural process to produce such an effect. However, if God exists, He is a supernatural being that can function outside of natural laws. He does not need to plant a seed to create an oak tree, He simply creates a full-grown oak tree at will.
There exists no reason to believe that God requires a natural process to work in.
No reason for flying reindeer either, I guess. Or chocolate-dropping bunnies.
Magic is magic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously though, Judges gives us the history of "judges" that God would raise up from time to time when the Israeli people would cry out to Him for help. It makes no claim to be a complete history of the region or the events that were going on around them.
.It's also a dubious view that there would have been anyone to refute the stories since the early churches growth was centered in the Greek area of the world, far from Judea. 
?