Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This makes a great deal of sense, because in the Sumerian King's List, the first kings lived ridiculously long lives (from: http://www.ragz-international.com/sumerian_king_list.htm):Arikay said:It is not known whether they are really based off base 60, but it is a possibility. If the stories were taken from older stories from sumaria then the base 60 error would make sense, since the sumarians and babylonians used a base 60 system instead of base 10.
After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira. In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 years. En-men-gal-ana ruled for 28800 years. Dumuzid, the shepherd, ruled for 36000 years. 3 kings; they ruled for 108000 years. Then Bad-tibira fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Larag. In Larag, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28800 years. 1 king; he ruled for 28800 years. Then Larag fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Zimbir. In Zimbir, En-men-dur-ana became king; he ruled for 21000 years. 1 king; he ruled for 21000 years. Then Zimbir fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Curuppag. In Curuppag, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 18600 years. 1 king; he ruled for 18600 years. In 5 cities 8 kings; they ruled for 241200 years. Then the flood swept over...
In Unug, Lugal-zage-si became king; he ruled for 25 (ms. P3+BT14 has instead: 34) years. 1 king; he ruled for 25 (ms. P3+BT14 has instead: 34) years. Then Unug was defeated (ms. S has instead: Then the reign of Unug was abolished) and the kingship was taken to Agade.
In Agade, Sargon, whose father was a gardener, the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa, became king, the king of Agade, who built Agade (ms. L1+N1 has instead: under whom Agade was built); he ruled for 56 (ms. L1+N1 has instead: 55) (ms. TL has instead: 54) years. Rimuc, the son of Sargon, ruled for 9 (ms. IB has instead: 7) (ms. L1+N1 has instead: 15) years. Man-icticcu, the older brother of Rimuc, the son of Sargon, ruled for 15 (ms. L1+N1 has instead: 7) years. Naram-Suen, the son of Man-icticcu, ruled for (mss. L1+N1, P3+BT14 have56 years. Car-kali-carri, the son of Naram-Suen, ruled for (ms. L1+N1, Su+Su4 have 25 (ms. P3+BT14 has instead: 24) years. (ms. P3+BT14 adds 157 are the years of the dynasty of Sargon...
So you don't try to interpret anything you read.leoj said:It's not about interpreting, it is literal, otherwise the whole bible may as well be taken as some kind of metaphorical blabber.
Use your head, junior...How do you know that it is poetry? Were you there
The easy awnser is not always the right one. I am sorry to tell you that you've been lied to.hussbob said:I choose to follow the creationist POV when it come to science and the bible and therefore I follow creationist theroies and the evidence they have put forward is very strong usually refuting evolution in head to head comparisons. (naturally I follow the bible first)
No, it is well-defined in a literal reading of Scripture, and you have not established that the literal reading is necessarily the correct one.Cybershark5886 said:Now, you do know that the Hebrew word "Adam" means simply "Man" or "mankind", do you not?
It means Man, yes, as well (with slight modification) as Woman.
But the singularity and individuality of Adam as a person is well defined in the scriptures.
Name those "alot" evolutionists. I can understand that the media gets it wrong, but please, cite your sources.Cybershark5886 said:and to the person who said that we evolved from monkeys: shame on you
You just shamed alot of evolutionists and the media. Oh well, atleast I'm not part of either of those groups.
.
And this sentence alone is enough proof to see how dangerous creationism is to Christianity when they want to force their quasi-interpretation upon you.leoj said:It's not about interpreting, it is literal, otherwise the whole bible may as well be taken as some kind of metaphorical blabber.
If genesis doesn't contradict please explain a 2 simple problems I have for me:Cybershark5886 said:A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not required for a belief in the Truth of the Bible.
A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not even required for a literal reading of other passages (since we need to approach each text on its own ground).
Just for the record though Jesus quoted from both genesis 1 and 2 in the same mouthful with an obvious reguard that there was no contradiction. And the problem is, that if we try to undermine some of the things in Genesis then we will ultimately leave room to deny other things in the bible. Such as the basis of marriage, clothes, sin (and its definition), and God's covenant. We start to undermine these and there goes our Christian morals. Genesis is the foundation for many things in the Bible, even some of Jesus' teachings.
Cybershark5886 said:Name those "alot" evolutionists. I can understand that the media gets it wrong, but please, cite your sources.
You specifically said that evolutionists (people who are schooled/teached/learmned about evolution) were spreading false information. I've began to write angry letters to them, but now it seems that I don't hve to. Because you just revealed yourself to be a Hovind wannabe.School for one,
Have you ever studied the theory of evolution? I don't mean in dept, but just learned about the basics? I hear you making a lot os claims, but I don't think you could even bring up a correct definition of Evolution. If you can, please do so.any arguement that I've been in so far involving evolution for two, and popular generalization
And as it turned out to be an incorrect one. I suggest you apologize.P.S. Dude it's just a generalization.
I'm perfectly well by calling my "evolutionairy ancestors". I have no desire to give it a technical name. If you want to know more about evolution of humans, I'm sure someone could direct you to a more technical page on that subject. Anyone?And please, as I asked before please give me your desired technical name for our supposed "evolutionary ancestors".
To cybershark, please don't reply to this message. I can't delete it anymore, but I don't want to derail the thread. if you want to talk about this, make a new thread about it, or give me a pm, but let's stick to evolution in this thread.Mistermystery said:If genesis doesn't contradict please explain a 2 simple problems I have for me:
When were stars created according to the bible?
On the fourth day of creation, after the earth was made says Gen.1:16-19
He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven.... And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Job 38:4-7 says Before the earth was made.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together.
And when was man/woman created? Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
---
Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
Cybershark5886 said:If one part of it is non literal, the whole thing is meangingless?
Not meaningless, contradictory. It leaves room for contradiction and misinterpretation.
And God's authoritive word cannot have contraditions in it, because then it wouldn't be God's word.
The Bible is truth. And the Bible says that "IF you abide in my word, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
But undermining the basic principles of Genesis
will lead to other ideas that this part of this book in the Bible must not be litteral and then we all of a sudden have a big list of exceptions to God's word
in order that we may live our lives how we want.
One church in the past (in the middle ages I think) retranslated the Bible to say "You SHALL commit adultery".
And several other ammendements to God commands and words.
And undermining Genesis is a great place to get way off track, for genesis is the foundation book of the Bible that leads up to even WHY Jesus had to come into the world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?