The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[Platte]

Actually, closer to the actual flood than you think. But well before 6000 years. And no, these guys didn't have writing. Neither did the guys who built Stonehenge. The evidence for symbolic images goes back tens of thousands of years, but not writing in the sense we think of it.

Writing was known prior to when Stonehenge was built. I’m sure whoever built it knew how to read and write.

 

[Platte]

Actually, closer to the actual flood than you think. But well before 6000 years. And no, these guys didn't have writing. Neither did the guys who built Stonehenge. The evidence for symbolic images goes back tens of thousands of years, but not writing in the sense we think of it.

If Noah built it it would have been within 6000 years ago.

 

[The Barbarian]

If Noah built it it would have been within 6000 years ago.

Not according to God. You're leaning on man's revision of His word.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, closer to the actual flood than you think. But well before 6000 years. And no, these guys didn't have writing. Neither did the guys who built Stonehenge. The evidence for symbolic images goes back tens of thousands of years, but not writing in the sense we think of it.

Writing was known prior to when Stonehenge was built.

Yes, but they didn't know about it. Cuneiform goes back to maybe 3400 BC. And we know how it began. It's an interesting story, if you'd like to hear it.

I’m sure whoever built it knew how to read and write.

No evidence whatever for that belief. Ironically, the structure itself demonstrates a lack of written language among the people who built the henge:

The mathematics in the structures of Stonehenge.

Discover this 2011 paper in Archive for History of Exact Sciences by Kainzinger, Albert focusing on: STONEHENGE (England); ENGLAND; BRONZE Age; NEOLITHIC Period; MATHEMATICS & architecture; METROLOGY; GEOMETRICAL constructions

openurl.ebsco.com

 

[Platte]

Actually, closer to the actual flood than you think. But well before 6000 years. And no, these guys didn't have writing. Neither did the guys who built Stonehenge. The evidence for symbolic images goes back tens of thousands of years, but not writing in the sense we think of it.


Yes, but they didn't know about it. Cuneiform goes back to maybe 3400 BC. And we know how it began. It's an interesting story, if you'd like to hear it.


No evidence whatever for that belief. Ironically, the structure itself demonstrates a lack of written language among the people who built the henge:

The mathematics in the structures of Stonehenge.

Discover this 2011 paper in Archive for History of Exact Sciences by Kainzinger, Albert focusing on: STONEHENGE (England); ENGLAND; BRONZE Age; NEOLITHIC Period; MATHEMATICS & architecture; METROLOGY; GEOMETRICAL constructions

openurl.ebsco.com

They understood numbers, they understood measurements, they understood length, height, and depth. But they didn’t write it down. Right.

 

[Platte]

Not according to God. You're leaning on man's revision of His word.

I take that as you agree that the Bible timeframe of Noah was within with past 6000 years

 

[Fervent]

I'm not sure anyone holds this position but me, but there's the agnostic functionalist option. In this, I mean that I do not know how God created the universe and I'm willing to frameswitch between a naturalistic POV when engaging with secular studies, but a literalist(YEC) frame when focusing on Biblical meanings. Where the truth lies, God knows.

 

[Platte]

I'm not sure anyone holds this position but me, but there's the agnostic functionalist option. In this, I mean that I do not know how God created the universe and I'm willing to frameswitch between a naturalistic POV when engaging with secular studies, but a literalist(YEC) frame when focusing on Biblical meanings. Where the truth lies, God knows.

Literalist as in the Bible teaches Creation was approx 6000 years ago and took 6 days to complete?

 

[The Barbarian]

I take that as you agree that the Bible timeframe of Noah was within with past 6000 years

No, that's man's revision of God's word.

 

[The Barbarian]

They understood numbers, they understood measurements, they understood length, height, and depth. But they didn’t write it down. Right.

Yep. How do you think the Incas, for example, built their castles?

 

[Fervent]

Literalist as in the Bible teaches Creation was approx 6000 years ago and took 6 days to complete?

Yeah, that's the model that seems to best account for the Biblical cosmogony. Though my position isn't that either one is true, both are models thaat serve different purposes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yeah, that's the model that seems to best account for the Biblical cosmogony. Though my position isn't that either one is true, both are models thaat serve different purposes.

Are you familiar with Dr. Gerald Aardsma's "Virtual Hitory" concept? It's his ingenious attempt to reconcile a YE interpretation of the Bible with the evidence of great age.

BC Correspondence: Virtual History

Correspondence with Dr. Aardsma about virtual history.

www.biblicalchronologist.org

I ask because your post suggests something like that. No offense intended if I misunderstood your position.

 

[Platte]

Yeah, that's the model that seems to best account for the Biblical cosmogony. Though my position isn't that either one is true, both are models thaat serve different purposes.

I think we should all agree that the Bible teaches that Creation was ~6000 years ago and took 6 days to complete. I never understood that someone would not agree that is what the Bible says.

 

[Platte]

Yep. How do you think the Incas, for example, built their castles?

I'm sure they had no problem reading or writing. Pretty naive of you to think different

We thought the Incas couldn't write. These knots change everything

A lost language encoded in intricate cords is finally revealing its secrets – and it could upend what we know about Incan history and culture

www.newscientist.com

 

[Platte]

No, that's man's revision of God's word.

Let me rephrase - Do you agree that the Word of the Bible teachs Creation was ~6000 years ago and took 6 days to complete?

 

[The Barbarian]

Let me rephrase - Do you agree that the Word of the Bible teachs Creation was ~6000 years ago

No, that's man's addition. A number of people have tried to use bits and pieces of scripture to find that, but they come up with different numbers. Which is a pretty good clue.

and took 6 days to complete?

Since the text itself says that they aren't literal 24-hour days, that really doesn't say anything about a timeline.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yep. How do you think the Incas, for example, built their castles?

I'm sure they had no problem reading or writing.

They didn't have any writing. The quipu were basically accounting, using numbers and keys. The corded strings have actually been partially decoded. None of it contains enough information to build a structure. This kind of thing could have evolved into actual writing, as it did in China and Mesopotamia. In each case, writing was preceded by marks on bones or clay, before it actually developed into writing. It's notable that the Chinese heated turtle plastrons and read the cracks that developed as a way of divining answers to questions. Supposedly, the character "not" 不 is derived from the crack so interpreted on the plaston.

Such systems emerged from earlier traditions of symbol systems in the early Neolithic, as early as the 7th millennium BC in China and southeastern Europe. They used ideographic or early mnemonic symbols or both to represent a limited number of concepts, in contrast to true writing systems, which record the language of the writer.

Proto-writing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the methods the Inca used, was borrowed from an earlier culture, the Tiwanaku, which didn't even use quipu.

Tiwanaku (Spanish: Tiahuanaco or Tiahuanacu) is a Pre-Columbian archaeological site in western Bolivia, near Lake Titicaca, about 70 kilometers from La Paz, and it is one of the largest sites in South America. Surface remains currently cover around 4 square kilometers and include decorated ceramics, monumental structures, and megalithic blocks. It has been conservatively estimated that the site was inhabited by 10,000 to 20,000 people in AD 800.

The site was first recorded in written history in 1549 by Spanish conquistador Pedro Cieza de León while searching for the southern Inca capital of Qullasuyu.

Jesuit chronicler of Peru Bernabé Cobo reported that Tiwanaku's name once was taypiqala, which is Aymara meaning "stone in the center", alluding to the belief that it lay at the center of the world.The name by which Tiwanaku was known to its inhabitants may have been lost as they had no written language. Heggarty and Beresford-Jones suggest that the Puquina language is most likely to have been the language of Tiwanaku.

Inca cities also contained similar types of architecture Infrastructure seen in Tiwanaku. From this it can be expected that the Inca took some inspiration from the city of Tiwanaku and other early civilizations in the Andean basin.

Tiwanaku - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This doesn't mean the Inca were smarter than many Old World cultures. As you know, Jericho, Stonehenge, and Gobekli Tepe were built by preliterate peoples.

 

[Fervent]

Are you familiar with Dr. Gerald Aardsma's "Virtual Hitory" concept? It's his ingenious attempt to reconcile a YE interpretation of the Bible with the evidence of great age.

BC Correspondence: Virtual History

Correspondence with Dr. Aardsma about virtual history.

www.biblicalchronologist.org

I ask because your post suggests something like that. No offense intended if I misunderstood your position.

I have seen it mentioned, but I'm not really into speculation purely for the sake of harmonizing the two. And the age is one one of the issues with a Biblical cosmology.

 

[Fervent]

I think we should all agree that the Bible teaches that Creation was ~6000 years ago and took 6 days to complete. I never understood that someone would not agree that is what the Bible says.

It's the most literal interpretation, but the Bible also has multiple creation narratives not just the one in Genesis. And all of them differ, Genesis just gets the most attention because it's at the front of the book.

 

[Platte]

It's the most literal interpretation, but the Bible also has multiple creation narratives not just the one in Genesis. And all of them differ, Genesis just gets the most attention because it's at the front of the book.

Great. That’s a good start. I like that you agree that Genesis teaches Creation was ~6000 years ago and took 6 days to complete