6,000 Years?

[stevevw]

The entire recorded History that we have is 5500 years. Everything we have documented has fit into that 5500 year period.

Thats why I keep saying its unreal. You base this on what mainstream call the birth of civilization due to agriculture and forming cities. But now we have discovered that agriculture was around 10,000 years ago.

But once again look at it practically. Here is architecture from Mesopotamia around 5,500 years ago.

So how can you reconcile this level of architecture with say Gobekli Tepe or other ancient sites around that time which are far more basic and had not yet got to the stage of that level of quality. It would take much longer than 100 years.

The Sumerians invented writing in Cuniform style 5,500 years ago. But before them were 1,000s of years of glyphs. Even rock and ground glyphs before the Egyptian Hyroglyphs. So how could both writing and simple rock glyphs exist at the same time. There needs to be 1,000s of years evolution.

Then what about before even glyphs, before any symbols were made. We need to accommodated this time period as well. It cannot all happen in 100 years. Your expects everything from cave men to the point we see with the Sumerians in Mesopotamia to happen in 100 years or so. Its not not practically possible.

 

[Platte]

That would be contained in this article.

Radiocarbon dating the first temples of mankind. Comments on 14C-Dates from Göbekli Tepe
The monument has been reliably dated to 9500-8500 BC using the radiocarbon method (Dietrich, 2011 , Dietrich & Schmidt, 2010.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258182967_Radiocarbon_dating_the_first_temples_of_mankind_Comments_on_14C-Dates_from_Gobekli_Tepe#:~:text=The%20importance%20of%20the%20ancient,%2C%20Dietrich%20%26%20Schmidt%2C%202010.

But like I said its not just the dating. You only have to look at Gobekli Tepe with say works from around 5,000 years ago like the Egyptian megaliths and precision works to know they are worlds apart and there was a long time between them and that they did not happen at the same time or even near each other.

View attachment 359732
View attachment 359737
View attachment 359740
View attachment 359741

You're not aware that the dating of Göbekli Tepe has basically been ridiculed and dismissed?

In order to carbon date something you have to have purposeful carbon material....you also have to know what the original amount of C14 there was.....which we don't know. You can't argue against something with material you simply accept as truth. Speculation isn't much of an argument either....in 75 years we went from horse to landing on the moon....new technology is utilized by man very comprehensively and very quickly.

 

[Valletta]

Lord Jesus is not literally a piece of bread any more so than he is a "the true vine" (John 15) or "the gate" or "door" (John 10:7-10). Your insinuation that Lord Jesus is a piece of bread is ridiculous.

What was in the cup was "the fruit of the vine" just as Lord Jesus stated, but represented the New Covenant in His blood.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

What Lord Jesus gave them to eat was bread, but represented his body broke for them.

Luke 22:19-20 (WEB) 19 He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.” 20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.



You are making the same mistake the Jews made when he said those words. They were taking literally what Lord Jesus was meaning figuratively.

John 6:35 (WEB) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will not be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

The Gospel of Salvation is about coming to (eating) Lord Jesus and believing (drinking) in Him to be saved, and NOT by eating his literal flesh and drinking his blood.



Lord Jesus plainly stated that what they were drinking was the fruit of the vine, which represents the New Covenant in His Blood to all who believe in him. That is the Gospel.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

If you want to continue believing that you have to literally eat Christ's body and drink his blood to be saved, you are free to do so; however, that is not the context. The context is always about coming to Lord Jesus and believing in Him as our Savior and Lord. That is the Gospel all through the New Testament.

The high priest Melchizedek offered mere bread and wine. Jesus, a priest of the order of Melchizedek, offered His true Body and true Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. When disciples of Jesus questioned him Jesus became even more emphatic and some actually walked away. It is a "hard saying." The disciples of Jesus did not question him about literally being a door, they did not say "How can this man be made of wood?"
They understood the door was figurative, but they did question Jesus when he was speaking literally about eating His Body. Jesus was honest and blunt with them. The comment about the fruit of the vine is a reference to wine. At the first mass, the Last Supper, Jesus linked the Passover to the mass. Jesus was both High Priest and sacrifice. During the Passover the Passover was not complete until the unblemished lamb was eaten. Jesus is the Lamb of God. During Passover there are four cups of wine. Jesus did not drink the fourth cup until He was on the cross, right before he said "It is finished." Remember the blood of the lamb was sprinkled with hyssop for Passover, Jesus was given wine on a sponge raised with the stalk of a hyssop plant.

 

[Frank Robert]

You're not aware that the dating of Göbekli Tepe has basically been ridiculed and dismissed?

Can you supply a reference from a legitimate source that the dating of Göbekli Tepe was ridiculed and dismissed.

How do we know Göbekli Tepe is 12000 years old?

Gobekli Tepe: The World's First Temple? | Smithsonian
The archaeologists did find evidence of tool use, including stone hammers and blades. And because those artifacts closely resemble others from nearby sites previously carbon-dated to about 9000 B.C., Schmidt and co-workers estimate that Gobekli Tepe's stone structures are the same age.

Source: Smithsonian Magazine

 

[HarleyER]

Does anybody have proof that the earth and the entire universe really is 6,000 - ish years old beyond the usual arguments that science has debunked over and over again? Arguments like the rocks in the Grand Canyon or some other such weak examples? I’m looking for reputable scientists who’ve written peer reviewed papers on the subject and gained the support of other reputable scientists?

One could ask does anyone have proof that Jesus rosed from the dead?

It boils down to how much you want to believe what Scripture teaches?

 

[Valletta]

Does anybody have proof that the earth and the entire universe really is 6,000 - ish years old beyond the usual arguments that science has debunked over and over again? Arguments like the rocks in the Grand Canyon or some other such weak examples? I’m looking for reputable scientists who’ve written peer reviewed papers on the subject and gained the support of other reputable scientists?

It is argued by many creationists that carbon dating and other dating methods, while working for the short term, do not necessarily apply to periods before those methods were invented.

 

[setst777]

The high priest Melchizedek offered mere bread and wine. Jesus, a priest of the order of Melchizedek, offered His true Body and true Blood under the appearance of bread and wine.

True, Lord Jesus offered his body and blood for purchase redemption for our sins, but the Scriptures never state that bread and wine transforms into the body and blood of Lord Jesus. However, if you want to believe that, go ahead and do so.

What was in the cup was "the fruit of the vine" just as Lord Jesus stated, but represented the New Covenant in His blood.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

What Lord Jesus gave them to eat was bread, but represented his body broke for them.

Luke 22:19-20 (WEB) 19 He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.” 20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

When disciples of Jesus questioned him Jesus became even more emphatic and some actually walked away. It is a "hard saying." The disciples of Jesus did not question him about literally being a door, they did not say "How can this man be made of wood?"
They understood the door was figurative, but they did question Jesus when he was speaking literally about eating His Body. Jesus was honest and blunt with them.

They were taking literally what Lord Jesus was meaning figuratively.

John 6:35 (WEB) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me [eating] will not be hungry, and whoever believes in me [drinking] will never be thirsty.

The Gospel of Salvation is about coming to (eating) Lord Jesus and believing (drinking) in Him to be saved, and NOT by eating his literal flesh and drinking his blood.

John 6:63 (WEB) It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.

According to the Gospel we don't possess eternal life by literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but be truly believing in him - the New Covenant is about the Spirit, not the flesh.

John 7:37-39 (WEB) 37 Now on the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink! 38 He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But he said this about the Spirit, which those believing in him were to receive.

The comment about the fruit of the vine is a reference to wine. At the first mass, the Last Supper, Jesus linked the Passover to the mass. Jesus was both High Priest and sacrifice. During the Passover the Passover was not complete until the unblemished lamb was eaten. Jesus is the Lamb of God. During Passover there are four cups of wine. Jesus did not drink the fourth cup until He was on the cross, right before he said "It is finished." Remember the blood of the lamb was sprinkled with hyssop for Passover, Jesus was given wine on a sponge raised with the stalk of a hyssop plant.

Lord Jesus plainly stated that what they were drinking was the fruit of the vine, which represents the New Covenant in His Blood to all who believe in him. That is the Gospel.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

Lord Jesus said that what they were drinking was "fruit of the vine."

If you want to rebel against Lord Jesus, and continue believing that you have to literally eat Christ's body and drink his blood to be saved, you are free to do so; however, that is not the context. The context is always about coming to Lord Jesus and believing in Him as our Savior and Lord. That is the Gospel all through the New Testament.

 

[Platte]

Can you supply a reference from a legitimate source that the dating of Göbekli Tepe was ridiculed and dismissed.

How do we know Göbekli Tepe is 12000 years old?

Gobekli Tepe: The World's First Temple? | Smithsonian
The archaeologists did find evidence of tool use, including stone hammers and blades. And because those artifacts closely resemble others from nearby sites previously carbon-dated to about 9000 B.C., Schmidt and co-workers estimate that Gobekli Tepe's stone structures are the same age.

Source: Smithsonian Magazin

Never rely on carbon dating to doubt the Bible. You should know that.

 

[River Jordan]

Never rely on carbon dating to doubt the Bible. You should know that.

Far too simplistic. A while ago Christian leaders would've said "Never rely on telescopes to doubt the Bible".

The key concept in both cases is that interpreting scripture differently than you isn't doubting it.

 

[Valletta]

True, Lord Jesus offered his body and blood for purchase redemption for our sins, but the Scriptures never state that bread and wine transforms into the body and blood of Lord Jesus. However, if you want to believe that, go ahead and do so.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26​

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper​

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[a] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. RSVCE

 

[stevevw]

You're not aware that the dating of Göbekli Tepe has basically been ridiculed and dismissed?

In order to carbon date something you have to have purposeful carbon material....you also have to know what the original amount of C14 there was.....which we don't know. You can't argue against something with material you simply accept as truth. Speculation isn't much of an argument either.

Ok so what did the paper mean when it clearly stated The monument has been reliably dated to 9500-8500 BC using the radiocarbon method (Dietrich, 2011 , Dietrich & Schmidt, 2010.

I mean we have 100's of carbon dating of at least 5,000 year old plus evidence. You can't say they are all wrong. The tests at Gobekli Tepe were from the organic material found in the stone walls in between the T pillars. So in fact the original site could be even older than 11,500 years. The stone wall were a later addition so the actual temple with the T pillarss and glyphs are older.

But we also have radio carbon dating from other sites near Gobekli Tepe such as Karahan Tepe.

Turkey’s temple mounds illuminate the birth of civilisation
The finds at Gobekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe have upended conventional wisdom

Turkey’s temple mounds illuminate the birth of civilisation

The finds at Gobekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe have upended conventional wisdom

www.economist.com

This article shows all the Neolithic sites that have either been carbon dated or had reliable archeological evidence that date back to between 10,000 and 3,500 BCE. So even the minimum date goers back 5,500 years. We are finding these sites all over the world but especially around Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, the Holy land and the fertile cresent. Which is exactly where we should see the start then branching out.

The other interesting thing I noticed was that nearly all these sites are in the northern hemisphere. If Noahs flood is associated with the global sized floods of the Younger Dryas then it makes sense as these giant floods mainly flooded the northern hemisphere around 12,000 years ago.

The Early Neolithic sites (10,000 BCE to 3,800 BCE)

The Early Neolithic sites (10,000 BCE to 3,800 BCE) used in our analysis. Sites shown with blue symbols have 14 C dates available, and those in red are archaeologically dated. Modern national borders are shown dashed. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095714.g001

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Early-Neolithic-sites-10-000-BCE-to-3-800-BCE-used-in-our-analysis-Sites-shown_fig1_262147801

...in 75 years we went from horse to landing on the moon....new technology is utilized by man very comprehensively and very quickly.

Like I mentioned this is a contradictory arguement because it took around 5,375 years to invent the car if civilisation began only 5,500 years ago. Even lomger if we go back 15,000 or more years ago.

So the logic would be the further we go back the longer it took to invent stuff thuse supporting what the evidence shows for a distant human past that went from primitive and simple knowledge to gradually build knowledge and the more knowledge we accumulated the faster we became at inventing stuff.

Like the wheel. It took a long time to invent but once we did suddenly the door opened for the potters wheel, pully systems for lifting, chariots, stage coaches and the simple combustion engine which is also based on rotation.

 

[FaithT]

One could ask does anyone have proof that Jesus rosed from the dead?

It boils down to how much you want to believe what Scripture teaches?

Scripture doesn’t say that the earth/universe is 6000 years old.

 

[davetaff]

Scripture doesn’t say that the earth/universe is 6000 years old.

No but it do say

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So creation began when noah stepped of the ark and would take 6 days to complete each day 1000 years long we are now approaching the end of day 6

There was a creation before the flood that was destroyed in the flood except for Noah and everything on the ark the onlything missing was man in the image of God so God began a new creation he already had everything he had created before the flood on the ark the onlything missing was man in the image of God so God set about rectifying that the first man in his image he created was Israel the man of flesh who must come first then comes the spiritual man Jesus Christ.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[AaronClaricus]

Thats why I keep saying its unreal. You base this on what mainstream call the birth of civilization due to agriculture and forming cities. But now we have discovered that agriculture was around 10,000 years ago.

But once again look at it practically. Here is architecture from Mesopotamia around 5,500 years ago.
View attachment 359743

View attachment 359745

View attachment 359746

So how can you reconcile this level of architecture with say Gobekli Tepe or other ancient sites around that time which are far more basic and had not yet got to the stage of that level of quality. It would take much longer than 100 years.

The Sumerians invented writing in Cuniform style 5,500 years ago. But before them were 1,000s of years of glyphs. Even rock and ground glyphs before the Egyptian Hyroglyphs. So how could both writing and simple rock glyphs exist at the same time. There needs to be 1,000s of years evolution.

Then what about before even glyphs, before any symbols were made. We need to accommodated this time period as well. It cannot all happen in 100 years. Your expects everything from cave men to the point we see with the Sumerians in Mesopotamia to happen in 100 years or so. Its not not practically possible.

View attachment 359752

View attachment 359754

Not exactly 3500BCE. The Ziggurat at Ur was built by Shulgi, a mighty man in 2100BCE. Ishtar's gate in about 600BCE, last one looks like a statue from Nimrud in 1000BCE.

Once you get to 3500BCE the amount of architecture is very limited. Important things were beginning to be build with bricks but the vast majority of the structures are still mud bricks and reeds which had been in use since around 15,000BCE. Before that it was a rough place(cold) for humans outside of caves. Which explains why ancient humans didn't invent civilization building technologies at some arbitrary point before 15,000BCE.

In 2200BCE or so the city Eridu was considered ancient ruins correctly by the Sumerians. They excavated the mudbrick temple which was about 2300 years old at the time. Ancient civs had their own "ancient civs" to do archaeology on. Then the site becomes somewhat of a tourist attraction. Which is something people who compress the timelines don't seem to understand. Of course, these ancient people got the dating wrong. They didn't know the difference between 2000 years and 400000(which is the date they had since creation of Eridu).

 

[Platte]

Like I mentioned this is a contradictory arguement because it took around 5,375 years to invent the car if civilisation began only 5,500 years ago. Even lomger if we go back 15,000 or more years ago.

So the logic would be the further we go back the longer it took to invent stuff thuse supporting what the evidence shows for a distant human past that went from primitive and simple knowledge to gradually build knowledge and the more knowledge we accumulated the faster we became at inventing stuff.

Like the wheel. It took a long time to invent but once we did suddenly the door opened for the potters wheel, pully systems for lifting, chariots, stage coaches and the simple combustion engine which is also based on rotation.

So, what specifically are you referring to that would have taken thousands of years to get to? Building a pyramid with stones?

 

[Platte]

Far too simplistic. A while ago Christian leaders would've said "Never rely on telescopes to doubt the Bible".

The key concept in both cases is that interpreting scripture differently than you isn't doubting it.

Carbon dating is working under several unverifiable assumptions....I'm not aware of any assumptions one must make to view through a telescope. And I'm not aware of any Christian leaders who would said not to rely on telescopes to doubt the Bible.


But again Carbon dating is working under several unverifiable assumptions....you have to know the original amount of C14 in a subject before your can calculate a carbon date....you also have to know the ratio of C14/C12....We make assumptions for both of these.

 

[Platte]

There was a creation before the flood that was destroyed in the flood except for Noah and everything on the ark the onlything missing was man in the image of God so God began a new creation he already had everything he had created before the flood on the ark the onlything missing was man in the image of God so God set about rectifying that the first man in his image he created was Israel the man of flesh who must come first then comes the spiritual man Jesus Christ.

Love and Peace
Dave

Not everything was destroyed in the flood...there was still plant and vegitation....and sea life (i.e. fish) was not destroyed either.

 

[Frank Robert]

Never rely on carbon dating to doubt the Bible. You should know that.

I am not doubting the Bible. What I asked for was sources that "the dating of Göbekli Tepe was ridiculed and dismissed" (Do you have a source?)

FYI: Besides carbon dating other archaeological methods such as stone tools and other artifacts are used to date sites like Göbekli Tepe.

 

[Platte]

I am not doubting the Bible. What I asked for was sources that "the dating of Göbekli Tepe was ridiculed and dismissed" (Do you have a source?)

FYI: Besides carbon dating other archaeological methods such as stone tools and other artifacts are used to date sites like Göbekli Tepe.

You would have to have a verifiable age of a stone tool or other artifact in order to use them to date something else

 

[River Jordan]

Carbon dating is working under several unverifiable assumptions....I'm not aware of any assumptions one must make to view through a telescope. And I'm not aware of any Christian leaders who would said not to rely on telescopes to doubt the Bible.

But again Carbon dating is working under several unverifiable assumptions....you have to know the original amount of C14 in a subject before your can calculate a carbon date....you also have to know the ratio of C14/C12....We make assumptions for both of these.

Unless you happen to be a professional who works with carbon dating techniques, I see no reason to blindly accept your claims that go against every professional in the field.

Do you really think you know their work better than they do?