My Reconciliation Challenge

[RevCowboy]

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.

I have studied most world religions some, but I am largely unfamiliar with Kabbalah. In fact, I think the only thing that I know is Madonna is or was a proponent.

But I suspect it may be bruhaha, but I would have to look into it.

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

While I don't know as much about the historical evidence of the Old Testment, I know its out there. I do know a bit more about the New Testament. The 4 Gospels themselves are rather interesting. The Gospel of Mark was written in 60-65 BCE (AD), Matthew 80-85, Luke 85-90, John 95-100. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John may not be the actual names of the authors, but I will use them for simplicity's sake.

Obviously Mark being the first did not know of the others and can be considered one source document. Now Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source and another document which has never been found called "Q" (Quellen from German which I believe means source). The reason scholars suspect Q exists is that Matthew and Luke share material in common that is just too similar to have been by accident, like exact wording. So Q is considered another primary source, even though it technically has never been found. There is also material that is particular to Luke and Matthew respectively that is not Mark or Q.

So Matthew , Mark and Luke all share similar chronologies of the story of Jesus. Now John, is just kind of totally off the wall and seemed to have no connection to the other books or even know of their existence. So within the Bible itself there are 4 independent sources. Mark, Q, John, SpecialM/Special L

Outside of the Bible however, there are is the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, and a few others that I am sure can be found in an online search.

Now while the person Jesus of Nazareth is likely to have existed (historical speaking), his divinity is a faith claim. Secular historians would say that at the people who saw him at least thought they were witnessing miracles. However, as we know from the video game Assassin's Creed, which I recently finished, Jesus used the "piece of Eden" to fool people into thinking his miracles were real.

I hope that gives some insight into your question!

 

[RealityCheck]

Please read what he wrote ---

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

Who are "we"?

Same as the imaginary person/people that have a rock that is simultaneously only 6100 years old and 4.5 billion years old.

 

[RealityCheck]

Now while the person Jesus of Nazareth is likely to have existed (historical speaking), his divinity is a faith claim. Secular historians would say that at the people who saw him at least thought they were witnessing miracles.

There's actually a good, logical argument for the existence of Jesus, and it's based on scripture.

However, it requires that one assume that there were details of Jesus' life that contradict the scriptures regarding the expectations of the Messiah.

Naturally, most people that I've shown this argument to (at least, most Christians anyway) aren't thrilled that the best proof of Jesus' existence requires believing that the Bible isn't the "infallible and inerrant Word of God."

But oh well. Can't have it both ways.

 

[BrainHertz]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

I presume, incidentally, that the answer you're looking for involves redefining the term "x years old" to mean something different from "has been in existence for x years"?

 

[RevCowboy]

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.

Slice and dice seems so barbaric. As Luther said, Scripture is the manger that holds the Christ. Christ is the true Word of God and worship the bible or uphold it as divine to be infallible is idolatry and I consider it to be modern liberal heresy. Along with manger comes straw and animal poop. One has to distinguish between the revealed Word and the incidental message of the human writers.

St. Augustine for example, only converted to Christianity when Bishop Gregory told him that one didn't have to take all scripture litterally to be a Christian. The notion of infallibility only came into fashion in the 18th century, surprisingly when modern science began to seem to question the bible. Although Evolution was first embraced by Christians, particularly in the southern US , as reason to show that African American people were less evolved than Caucasians.

Now not taking everything in Bible literally does not mean that I do not take it seriously, very seriously. But as I recognize that Jesus often used stories and parables to convey truth, perhaps it occurs in other places as well. Especially, when the text sounds like a story. Genesis 1 is written to sound like a bed time story with rhyming and rhythm. If it looks like story, it probably is, but it does not mean that is doesn't have truth in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I presume, incidentally, that the answer you're looking for involves redefining the term "x years old" to mean something different from "has been in existence for x years"?

Absolutely not --- it is 4.57 billion years old --- period.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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

from the point singularity that expaned in what is colloquially known as "the Big Bang"

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Absolutely not --- it is 4.57 billion years old --- period.

which means, by definition, that time elapsed since its creation is 4.57 billion years

 

[AV1611VET]

Slice and dice seems so barbaric.

+ =

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

I would say that, if such a reconciliation is possible, it would come down to the distinction between phrases.

The first may be between "has been in existance for" and "is".
Colloquially the two are synonymous, so this reconciliation must be one of semantics at best. That is, it would have to pay no heed to the intent of the statement. For example, one may butcher the English language and redefine 'is' to mean, in this context, "appears to have been in existance for".

One may also claim that the rock in (1) is different to the rock in (2), and so no reconciliation is necessary: both may be simultaneously true.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Absolutely not --- it is 4.57 billion years old --- period.

And does this mean "4.57 billion years have passed since its formation", or "4.57 billion years appear to have passed since its formation"? Or something else entirely?

 

[[serious]]

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.

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

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

The Irony... it burns!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And does this mean "4.57 billion years have passed since its formation", or "4.57 billion years appear to have passed since its formation"? Or something else entirely?

From previous discussion with AV, he seems to think that if it is absolutely impossible to tell the ex nihilo apple's embedded age, from its ACTUAL age (e.g. a 3 second old apple with the appearance of 5 million years) then it is actually its apparent age that is what it is.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Irony... it burns!

"Captain, the Irony Meter cannae take much more o' this... she's gonna fly apart!"

/Scotty

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do what? When have I ever quoted Ussher?

From this, can we assume then that you've just arbitrarily made up "6100 years" for no good reason?

 

[AV1611VET]

From this, can we assume then that you've just arbitrarily made up "6100 years" for no good reason?

No --- I have actually done the math myself, and it's close enough that I just say that I go with what Ussher said. It's easier to invoke Ussher, than it is to invoke my own personal calculations, since more people know who Ussher is than they know who I am.

 

[Risu]

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

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

I find it quite amusing with this change in rules. Sure, God can probably make a rock that appears ancient and is pretty young. But can I reconcile the two? Not logically.

No single rock, nor anything else, can be two ages at once. It was created at x time, and has existed up until the present, unless it was destroyed in the interim. If we're still playing with logic (I prefer those house rules personally; the whole "God's pulling the wool over all our eyes" story just doesn't fly well with me) then the proven scientific processes (in the case of a rock, I believe radiometric dating works nicely) would tell me how old the rock really is.

Maybe the rock is around 6100 years old. Maybe it is 4.57 billion years old. If we test the damned thing, we'll have logical evidence pointing to one, and that's the one I'd place my bets on.

 

[BrainHertz]

Absolutely not --- it is 4.57 billion years old --- period.

Unfortunately, just restating the premise and adding "period" to the end doesn't help with definitions. Let me just ask for clarification: does the word "old" in this context designate a period of time for which the item in question has been in existence?


Oh, wait... does this have something to do with redefining time or something?

 

[BrainHertz]

+ =

What's the second item? Maybe a tricorder...?

 

[Soul Searcher]

What's the second item? Maybe a tricorder...?

I think it is called a veg-o-matic