My Reconciliation Challenge

[Nathan Poe]

Why is it that all of AV's "Challenges" involve him asking us to prove absurd Creationist gibberish which only he believes?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why is it that all of AV's "Challenges" involve him asking us to prove absurd Creationist gibberish which only he believes?

That we may only engage on HIS terms with HIS rules, don't forget

 

[RevCowboy]

Wow --- anyone else calling me that, and I would have just laughed it off --- but coming from someone with whom I consider a brother in Christ; well, that kinda stung.

In any event --- you're right --- I cannot take the Bible and come up with the number 6100; but I can do what Bishop Ussher did and come up with 4100. Then, adding secular history, tack on another 2000.

I go with Ussher's statement that the Creation occurred in 4004 BC.

While James Ussher's scholarly work was some of the best of his time and he should not be ridiculed for his methods, fairly soon after, most theologians began to dismiss his chronology. It should also be noted that Ussher only used the Bible for about a sixth of the information in his chronology, the rest were extra-biblical sources.

Most Biblical scholars today agree that while the purpose of the Genesis genealogies (in which Jesus does not appear since they are found in the Old Testament) was to show the connection between Adam, Noah and Abraham, they are more rhetorical than historical.

AV1, my view on Genesis is that it is not a literal or historical account of creation. Rather, it was written during the Babylonian exile to show that the God of Israel created the gods of Babylon. It used ancient oral tradition and ancient cosmology. It describes a three tired universe. It uses the ancient notion that human beings were contingent on their parents and therefore there must have been a "first man" to start it. It all makes sense according to the understanding of how the world worked at the time.

However, while Genesis may not be historically precise it does contain Truth. It tells us the important parts of the story. It tells us who did it and why. And as it continues beyond the story it gives us insightful truth into the reality of who we are as human beings and why the world is the way it is.

Now beyond Genesis 1-11, the Bible contains much more historicity and true events.

 

[Braunwyn]

While James Ussher's scholarly work was some of the best of his time and he should not be ridiculed for his methods, fairly soon after, most theologians began to dismiss his chronology. It should also be noted that Ussher only used the Bible for about a sixth of the information in his chronology, the rest were extra-biblical sources.

Most Biblical scholars today agree that while the purpose of the Genesis genealogies (in which Jesus does not appear since they are found in the Old Testament) was to show the connection between Adam, Noah and Abraham, they are more rhetorical than historical.

AV1, my view on Genesis is that it is not a literal or historical account of creation. Rather, it was written during the Babylonian exile to show that the God of Israel created the gods of Babylon. It used ancient oral tradition and ancient cosmology. It describes a three tired universe. It uses the ancient notion that human beings were contingent on their parents and therefore there must have been a "first man" to start it. It all makes sense according to the understanding of how the world worked at the time.

I don't know much about theology but have you looked into the Kabbalah and the interpretation of genesis within it? I don't know if it's all bruhaha but it's definately interesting.

Now beyond Genesis 1-11, the Bible contains much more historicity and true events.

Are there any historical records that coincide with some of the events noted in the bible?

 

[RealityCheck]

You disagree with what? That not all Christians agree with creatio ex nihilo, or are you saying you, personally, disagree with creatio ex nihilo?

Both. You're nobody to speak for all Christians.

 

[RealityCheck]

Why is it that all of AV's "Challenges" involve him asking us to prove absurd Creationist gibberish which only he believes?

I suspect it has something to do with entertainment for him. It's free and doesn't cost anything but his own time, so I can see how that would be appealing... at least, to a certain kind of personality. (Usually, though, that kind of personality is called a Troll.)

 

[RealityCheck]

Are there any historical records that coincide with some of the events noted in the bible?

Plenty. Not that the dates always match up, but plenty of events in the Bible are real events that really happened. The history books of Samuel and Kings (Chronicles largely rehashes these but with more of a focus on the mystical/religious aspects), many of the events that form the basis for Isaiah and Jeremiah, for example, contain events that coincide with other records in other cultures/nations.

It used to be thought that the events in Joshua were genuine events, but modern archaeological studies have provided strong evidence that the Hebrews did not actually conquer Canaan as written. They did eventually come to control Canaan, but this was not apparently done by military conquest - more like economic and cultural conquest.

 

[[serious]]

I can reconcile the two.

The rock is formed then accelerated to ver y near the speed of light for 2.25 billion years. We then slingshot it arouund a black hole to bring it back to earth over the course of another 2.25 billion years.

Of course, this would provide a rock that appeared to be 6100 years old but that was created 4.5 billion years ago which I thing is the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.

Please note that an actual answer was given 7 pages ago that you never responded to.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I want to ask you why Ussher's words get such Divine weight attached to them by you.

Do what? When have I ever quoted Ussher?

 

[AV1611VET]

That God created the universe through purely natural processes... i.e. he set the ranges and amounts 15 billion years ago, and set the whole thing in motion.

Where did the "whole thing" He set the ranges and amounts come from?

 

[RealityCheck]

Where did the "whole thing" He set the ranges and amounts come from?

Same place as "embedded age" and your challenge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now beyond Genesis 1-11, the Bible contains much more historicity and true events.

Fair enough --- if you have to slice and dice the Bible up like that to find me a "heretic," then I think you did a good job.

Now all's that left is for you to proclaim me anathema maranatha, is that correct?

But let me say this: when we both get to Heaven, you're getting told on.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can reconcile the two.

The rock is formed then accelerated to ver y near the speed of light for 2.25 billion years. We then slingshot it arouund a black hole to bring it back to earth over the course of another 2.25 billion years.

Of course, this would provide a rock that appeared to be 6100 years old but that was created 4.5 billion years ago which I thing is the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.

Please note that an actual answer was given 7 pages ago that you never responded to.

Are you talking to me, or yourself? If you're talking to me, then I have to say that I was looking for a more realistic answer than that Star Trek junk.

 

[Soul Searcher]

In Star Trek they slingshot around the sun at a speed much higher than the speed of light to go back in time.

 

[RealityCheck]

In Star Trek they slingshot around the sun at a speed much higher than the speed of light to go back in time.

Only because that's the only way they can keep Shatner's head from going completely bald.

 

[Patashu]

Are you talking to me, or yourself? If you're talking to me, then I have to say that I was looking for a more realistic answer than that Star Trek junk.

It's not Star Trek; special relativity is verifiably real and would produce that effect.

 

[BrainHertz]

Here's a question for all you guys that think it can't logically be done:

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

Not a fan of Kant, I guess?

 

[Soul Searcher]

Only because that's the only way they can keep Shatner's head from going completely bald.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not Star Trek; special relativity is verifiably real and would produce that effect.

Please read what he wrote ---

"We then slingshot it around a blackhole..."

Who are "we"?

 

[RealityCheck]

Not a fan of Kant, I guess?

He can't get his head around Kant.