Creation Date

[Mr Laurier]

Ussher seemed to assume a lot with his 4004 B.C. creation date (evidently based on the first day of creation week). Personally, I think Creation week was in a different time zone altogether from the one we know. For example, why would the days before Day 4 and the creation of the sun be the same length as we know them? And really, it was God’s work, so how could we assume to know the length of any of them anyway? And, as far as chronology back to Adam, that’s crossing Day 7 of Creation Week??? God said it was finished on Day 6 (but doesn’t say when He set it in motion that I can find), and Day 7 was a day of rest for Him, but never-the-less in the Creation week time zone. I’m not wanting to argue against YEC, or anything really, just curious what others think. Could the adherence to hard dates, even when they cross from our time zone to an unknown one, be a reason for the time problem when dating the Flood or archeological finds and making comparisons? I’m not saying the archeological dating is exact either, it’s generally all estimated. All I’m saying, for example, is that the Flood was before Egyptian dynasties, no matter what dates they’re thought to be, and whether they're based on an interpretation of biblical chronologies or archaeological finds. Evolutionists feel free to comment too.

I'm going to appeal to Galileo.
"The bible tells us how to go to heaven. Not how the heavens go".
When I was a christian, I knew that the earth was ancient. And the universe even more ancient.
I knew that the flood story was not literal history, but allegory.

 

[AV1611VET]

I knew that the flood story was not literal history, but allegory.

Were you tested on that?

If so, how did you answer it?

 

[Astrid]

I'm going to appeal to Galileo.
"The bible tells us how to go to heaven. Not how the heavens go".
When I was a christian, I knew that the earth was ancient. And the universe even more ancient.
I knew that the flood story was not literal history, but allegory.

Do you still know it is allegory?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Were you tested on that?

If so, how did you answer it?

Why would he, or any other Christian, be "tested" on the allegorical nature of "The Flood"?

(It certainly wouldn't have been an appropriate question in any school class.)

 

[Astrid]

Why would he, or any other Christian, be "tested" on the allegorical nature of "The Flood"?

(It certainly wouldn't have been an appropriate question in any school class.)

During the more savage days of Christianity's past
the correct answer would get your feet burned off.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would he, or any other Christian, be "tested" on the allegorical nature of "The Flood"?

(It certainly wouldn't have been an appropriate question in any school class.)

As I understand it, Dan had catechism classes growing up.

A Catholic orphanage, or something like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

During the more savage days of Christianity's past
the correct answer would get your feet burned off.

With respect to the Bible? or in spite of It?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

With respect to the Bible? or in spite of It?

With respect to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

With respect to it.

Example please?

With specific names.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I understand it, Dan had catechism classes growing up.

Oh, OK. I also had catechism classes as a child, but they weren't particularly rigorous, nor were there (to my recall) many "tests". I think, frankly, that they kept "sophisticated theology" from us as it might raise too many questions. The Church isn't literalist, but making the Flood "allegory" might be going to far and invite unwanted questions. (Unwanted questions seemed to be the thing they feared most.)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Example please?

With specific names.

lol. The Church wasn't very good at record keeping back in the day, but Jacques de Molay would be one example of something similar (burnt at the stake).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

lol. The Church wasn't very good at record keeping back in the day, but Jacques de Molay would be one example of something similar (burnt at the stake).

I think AV might be asking for Bible verses and the like.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think AV might be asking for Bible verses and the like.

He asked for names, that would indicate he is looking for either victims or perpetrators.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He asked for names, that would indicate he is looking for either victims or perpetrators.

The Bible verses have names too.

It is hard to say. He should have been clearer, but I imagine that when he says with respect to the Bible, he'd want a Bible verse to back it up.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Were you tested on that?

Nope.

If so, how did you answer it?

see above

 

[Mr Laurier]

As I understand it, Dan had catechism classes growing up.

A Catholic orphanage, or something like that.

A secular dumping ground for unwanted children.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Do you still know it is allegory?

No.
I know it is a plagiarized myth.

 

[Mr Laurier]

During the more savage days of Christianity's past
the correct answer would get your feet burned off.

indeed.
And more than feet.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No.
I know it is a plagiarized myth.

Allegory also perhaps: cleansing water s of baptism.

 

[AV1611VET]

A secular dumping ground for unwanted children.

Would it be too hard to ask you to be more specific? was it catechism or not?