Genealogy = Chronology?

[Vance]

Here is the impact of what Barnabus is saying: there were these six creation days, and this also applies to six periods of time which are NOT 24 hour days, those of the ages after creation. So, far, fine (although I don't take Barnabus' word for this).

Now, that means that the original creation "days" can be applied effectively to be analogous to different time measures. In his case, he is using the six original "days" to refer 1,000 year "days". So, when we see that creation week applied to man's work week, the fact that this work week is made up of 24 hour days does not REQUIRE that the original 6 "days" be 24 hour periods any more than Barnabus' reference requires that they be 1,000 day periods. This is supported, as I have mentioned, by the application of the six "days" of creation to the seven year crop rotation mandate in Leviticus.

All this means is that YEC's can't, with any consistency, insist that the "work week" mandate REQUIRES a reading of 24 hour "days" in Genesis 1.

That's all.

 

[Vance]

WOW...are you an idiot.
last year I claimed the creation was 6000 years ago. Today I claim the creation was 6000 years ago...and if Jesus tarries, next year i will claim the creation was 6000 years ago.

The 6000 years is just an approximation...you do understand that? If you do, then I apologize for referring to you as an idiot. If you don't, well then....

But the whole point of accurate genealogies is that you can simply add it all up. Why *can't* we figure it out exactly? Ussher was able to pin it down pretty tight (I think he even knew it started on a Tuesday afternoon, or something particular like that). What are the ambiguity factors? Where did Ussher get it wrong?

 

[Ark Guy]

Barnabus also believed Adam was formed from the dust as mentioned in Genesis:

6:9 What saith the knowledge? Learn ye. Hope, it saith, upon Jesus, who is about to be manifested unto you in the flesh. For man is but earth which suffers; for, from the face of the ground was made the moulding of Adam.

Barnabus did not write as if Adam was a myth as claimed by the OEC's.

Barnabus also believed in the scripture that we now know as Genesis.

6:12 For the scripture saith concerning us, that he
saith unto the Son, Let us make man after our own image and according to our likeness; and let them rule over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea. And the Lord said, when he saw how excellent our form was, Increase and multiply and replenish the earth. These things he saith unto
the Son.

Put it all together and Barnabus was a Young Earth Creationist.

 

[Ark Guy]

But the whole point of accurate genealogies is that you can simply add it all up. Why *can't* we figure it out exactly? Ussher was able to pin it down pretty tight (I think he even knew it started on a Tuesday afternoon, or something particular like that). What are the ambiguity factors? Where did Ussher get it wrong?

I don't know Vance..you tell me where Ussher got it wrong...that is if he even got it wrong.

 

[Bushido216]

Where's that image of those people moving the goalposts?

Someone re-read this thread, see how much of a jig Ark Guy is doing.

 

[Vance]

Well, sure, most of the Christian community were young earth creationists (if they would have been asked), there is no doubt about that. Barnabus was also a geocentrist and very likely a flat earther as well. What he understood about science makes no difference to what we shoudl believe now. He believed that the Genesis story was true, and so do we all. That is not the issue. And, yes, if asked, he undoubtedly would have said he believed that Genesis referred to six 24 hour days. And he would have said that Genesis said the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was fixed in one place.

Barnabus, or even Paul's, belief about the scientific truth of how God created is irrelevant. BTW, Paul was assuredly a geoentrist as well.

And, the question again is whether you adhere to the Ussher chronology or not. If not, why not?

 

[Vance]

I should add, though, that a lot of early fathers, like Augustine, did NOT believe that Genesis referred to literal 24 hour days, and this was LONG before he could see the scientific evidence of this fact.

 

[Ark Guy]

So barny and paul were geocentrist...care to prove it?

 

[Vance]

Well, since EVERYONE was geocentrist, I figured they might be as well. Copernicus didn't come up with his theory which disputed geocentrism until the late middle ages.

Now, there may have been someone around much earlier who had thought past geocentrism that I don't know about (not my area, really), maybe one of the arab scholars, but not in the first century, no.

You must think about it. Without the discovery of heliocentrism based on more detailed astronomy, the natural, human instinct would be to go with what you saw: a flat earth that stood still and a sun and moon and stars that all seem to revolve around it.

Unless you have some evidence that any significant segment of the first century world beleived in heliocentrism, it is a VERY safe bet that any given person was geocentrist.

 

[lucaspa]

Consider the following character....Barnabus

In the book of Barnabus we read the following:

But that book isn't part of the canon, is it? It's not in the Bible. If the Bible is "God's Word", then this must not be "God's Word". Why are you using it to help calculate Biblical dates?

 

[lucaspa]

The point was made that the early christians believed in a young earth and not evolutionISM.

The early Christians also believed in Gnosticism, a flat earth, and the earth at the center of the solar system. All these have been discarded by later Christians. So why can't we also discard young earth when the evidence in God's Creation says it is not true? The early Christians didn't have that evidence.

BTW, what is "evolutionISM"?

 

[lucaspa]

NEWS FLASH for Bushido.....everything you read is an interpretation.
You just fail to realize that a literal Genesis is the correct interpretation.

No, it's not.
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;

How do we know? Simple...read the New Testament. That's how they interpreted it.

So? Why would their interpretation be correct? They didn't have the evidence from God we have now.

They didn't filter their bible through the religious views of evolutionISM

Just what are the "religious views of evolutionism"?

 

[lucaspa]

vance, I used Barnabus to show that the early christians believed in a young earth.

Whether you believe that Barny was full of it or not is of no consequence to my argument.

In Post #2 you said "In other words, according to Barnabus who was alive at the time of Christ, the earth had to be young and not 4.5 BY old."

You also use Barnabus to bolster your 1,000 year reign for day 7. So, you are using Barnabus as an authority and essential backing of your argument. Whether Barnabus was full of it or not is of great consequence to your argument.

If Barnabus was full of it, then the early Christians did not believe what you claim. Also, your own chronology loses its basis.

 

[lucaspa]

Put it all together and Barnabus was a Young Earth Creationist.

So that's why he was kept out of the canon!