The linage...FACT or FICTION?

[Ark Guy]

Typically the numbers agree..because it's what there looking for.

If the numbers turn out wrong, you know, to old or to young...then obviously the rock dater made a mistake.

Back to the linage..it does matter. Why would God fib in this linage?
if that linage is inaccurate..then perhaps the accounts of Jesus are also fouled up.

 

[Vance]

Karl, that is a very interesting page, thanks for posting the link. While I tend toward a belief that the events of Genesis are based in historical events, I am not dogmatic about this and concede that the basic concepts you set out are a real possibility. Either way, God's Word is wholly true and infallible.

 

[Ark Guy]

We did address it. We pointed out it didn't matter, and that there are other lineages that are clearly historical at one end and mythical at the other.

Your assumptions - if those assumptions are not valid, the points will not lie on a straight line.

If by some oddity they do, then you have to face the fact that these meteorites always date to this sort of age, which is a little older than the very oldest rocks on the earth.

Why do these dating methods so agree if they are so flawed?

Do you have a reference for your claims???? Personally I think your just making it up.

 

[Buck72]

so the creationist side, as ever, reverts to attacks on the integrity of the faith of the opposition. It's insulting, offensive and totally groundless, but that's what I've come to expect in the three years or so I've spent arguing with creationists.

Well, I'm new at the debate, without the three years experience or the fast-click pics of inserted images to marvelously PROVE evolution. May I ask you this sir?

If you were sincerely wrong (hypothetical of course ) would you rather continue in the wrong, in the comfort that you're "right", or would you prefer the discomfort (you called it: "insulting) of facing the fact of that wrong, that you could really KNOW you're right?

See I have such confidence, sorry its offensive, because I know that I am NOT right. But I have the word of God. Paul says we have the "mind of Christ"

1Co 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

Here is the fundamental fallacy - the creationist (and this is a common fundamentalist problem) does not distinguish between "Scripture" (S) and "A Literal Reading of Scripture" (Sl). Therefore when he says "Scripture says", he means "A literal reading of Scripture says....". And he doesn't spot the little jump, because for him S=Sl.

Likewise the evos with their heads buried in fossils and not in scripture (okay, not as much) draw fantastic conclusions about what they choose to believe and not believe and somehow, we fundamentalists are the weird ones. Sorry bro. Doesn't fit.

"NEXT PLEASE!"

But this is why he doesn't realise how insulting and offensive he is being. Because when the non-literalist appears on the scene, using a figurative interpretation (Sf), the creationist notes that Sf<>Sl. Since as far as he's concerned, Sl=S, it follows that Sf<>S - the figurative reading does not agree with 'Scripture'. So he starts berating the non-literalist for rejecting Scripture, apparently unable to grasp that to reject Sl is not to reject S.

Jesus was insulting and offensive. Was He crucified by the religious leaders (ponder that one for awhile) simply because He was so laid-back and cool?

Read the Gospels again and then point out where we fundamentalists have it all wrong - that is no fallacy my friend. Christ was crucified because He enraged the religious "elite" with the message of the truth that somehow excluded most of them. Now our lines are much narrower, but ever the much as polar in the manner of understanding scripture.

Buck and Ark Guy are referred to my essay here - http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm - and asked whether this is what they call "scoffing".

If they follow the normal pattern, they will not read it, but rather move on to strategy 3, which is to say they'll pray for Vance, Lucaspa, me, Lewis etc. that our eyes will be opened and we'll accept Jesus.... Hopefully they'll call my bluff here and actually read it and possibly we'll get a debate without the accusations. Who knows?

Hey man, what's with the snippiness? I'll read your article, just ask! I've made every effort to be congenial here, but I do not respect the slander and ill words toward those that disagree with you theo evos. One guy in here referred to another believer as a "troll" - come on!

Accepting Jesus is another matter. I'm not challenging your faith in Christ, simply the manner of scripture interpretation and how that leads to an astigmatic worldview in contrast to the very scripture that many of you claim so boldly to revere. Also, I call it like it is, and if that steps on toes, and "insults", well maybe that is a necessary process for growth!

We could all use a little insulting now and then. That's why I read the Bible, to be insulted enough to examine my heart and seek change to be more like Christ.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF IDENTIFYING WITH CHRIST IN THIS FAITH!!!!

 

[Buck72]

Calling Buck's bluff...

It's not my bluff Karl, nor is it a bluff. Yours looks more like a bluff since it is meant to shock and awe me into submission. No fear, the Bible is much, much scarier than any attempt of men to coerce me into believing the universe evolved (please).

Please don't get me wrong. I do love science. It isn't the science here that I'm contesting, it is the notional conclusions that evolution is the only answer that I contend with.

This is a rocky meteorite with chondrules. Here are some isochron datings of meteorites of this type:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold

Remember, if any of the assumptions on which isochron dating works are not actually correct, then the points will not make a straight line, and no age can be deduced.

Again, I'll take the time to read up on isochron dating. I know that carbon dating is in gross comical error, and has made a farce out of what used to be science. I'll be objective here though and get back to you in a few days.

Oh, I don't see a date stamp on those rocks. Perhaps no one knows for CERTAIN how old they really are?

I can't show you an unobserved one. I can show you real Kuiper Belt objects though:

Another conclusion based upon INCOMPLETE DATA. How far away are these objects? Are you aware of the use of trigonometry to estimate distance? The widest span of observation being the earth's orbit diameter of 186,000,000 miles (16 light minutes). At a range of 1 light year (525,948 light minutes) that angle is about 0.017 degrees. That angle becomes less and less with distance. Millions of light years is totally, totally immeasurable.

See my previous post. You are confusing S with Sl again. That millions of years are not there is totally irrelevant, since neither are quantum mechanics, relativistic time dilation or the wave/particle light model.

Is it also irrelavant that SIX DAYS AND EARTH-COVERING FLOOD are in there?

 

[Buck72]

Either way, God's Word is wholly true and infallible.

AMEN!!!

So why then the conditional interpretations of what is/is not literal, allegorical?

Genesis cannot be wholly true if there was no six days and no flood. That would have to deleted from scripture to make it 'wholly true' in the perceptions of many in this forum.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It's not my bluff Karl, nor is it a bluff. Yours looks more like a bluff since it is meant to shock and awe me into submission. No fear, the Bible is much, much scarier than any attempt of men to coerce me into believing the universe evolved (please).

Please don't get me wrong. I do love science. It isn't the science here that I'm contesting, it is the notional conclusions that evolution is the only answer that I contend with.

Again, I'll take the time to read up on isochron dating. I know that carbon dating is in gross comical error, and has made a farce out of what used to be science. I'll be objective here though and get back to you in a few days.

Please do. Remember your solution has to explain how erroneous results still produce a straight line, and also why different isochronic methods keep producing the same age.

Carbon dating is not in any kind of error. It works very well and can be indendently calibrated with other dating methods such as dendrochronology. Creationist stunts - date this water snail, this seal hide - notwithstanding, it is a very well researched and reliable scientific method. Question: since you are well aquainted with C14 dating, can you tell me why the creationist claims about water snail and seal hide dating are invalid?

Oh, I don't see a date stamp on those rocks. Perhaps no one knows for CERTAIN how old they really are?

The date stamp is there for those with the knowledge to read it.

Another conclusion based upon INCOMPLETE DATA. How far away are these objects?

Most are about 30-40 AUs from the sun I believe. That's about 4 light hours.

Are you aware of the use of trigonometry to estimate distance?

Yes. Unlike most creationists, I am actually arguing from a basis of scientific literacy.

The widest span of observation being the earth's orbit diameter of 186,000,000 miles (16 light minutes). At a range of 1 light year (525,948 light minutes) that angle is about 0.017 degrees. That angle becomes less and less with distance. Millions of light years is totally, totally immeasurable.

Indeed. But that's OK, because these objects are only 240 light minutes away. I think you'll agree parallax measurements work rather well where the ratio of base to distance is around 15, don't you? Why are you arguing science if your knowledge of astronomy is so poor you think the Kuiper Belt is millions of light years away?

Is it also irrelavant that SIX DAYS AND EARTH-COVERING FLOOD are in there?

Clearly they didn't literally happen. Time to actually do some Bible study and extract the theological messages from the texts, which would be a lot easier without fundamentalist bleating moving the focus to the unimportant subject of their historicity.

 

[Vance]

AMEN!!!

So why then the conditional interpretations of what is/is not literal, allegorical?

Genesis cannot be wholly true if there was no six days and no flood. That would have to deleted from scripture to make it 'wholly true' in the perceptions of many in this forum.

Ah, but here is where you just keep ignoring what I am saying, whether you agree with it or not. Genesis can be, and is, wholly true even without interpreting it to require six 24 hour days and no worldwide flood. Just as it is true even though the sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around. A presentation using symbolic and poetic language is still completely true when it comes from God.

Also, you still seem to be getting your science from Creationist sites (as is evidenced by your scorn for carbon dating). This is a VERY bad idea. Again, it is like trying to learn about Christianity from an atheist website. As for carbon dating, it does have some serious issues, but when used properly and with correct controls, it still most often produces correct results.

Here is an explanation of Carbon - 14 from a leading Christian scientist (who does NOT believe in evolution), showing both its limitations and usefulness:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/carbon14.shtml?main

A more general overview of dating techniques can be found here, in an article entitled "Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective":

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/radiometricdating/index.shtml?main#age

This latter article is detailed, but you can skip right to the conclusion sections "The Age of the Earth" and "Can we really believe the Dating Systems". I highly recommend this latter article.

 

[lucaspa]

I presented this linage on another thread and the Theo-Evos seemed to avoid answering the question.

So, here is is again. Would someone please show me where the linage turns from fact to fiction. Certainly it must, that is considering that the Theo-Evos claim that Adam didn't really exist and was really just some sort of representation of the first group of evolved primates that had a soul.

Well, the lineage is inaccurate from the beginning since Jesus is not Joseph's son, is he?

Now, we go back, we can be certain that these are not literal persons:
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,

BTW, Adam is a created creature, not God's literal offspring, so that last leap from Adam to God is also inaccurate, even for a Biblical literalist.

From Noah to Heli, we simply don't know. Noah may have been a real person, altho a world-wide Flood was not a real event. Or Noah may have been fictional.

There's no way to know. The theological intent of the lineage is to get Jesus back to David, so that the Messiah could come from the House of David. But even that is open to doubt, since Luke is writing after the fact and already knows -- by the resurrection -- that Jesus is the Messiah. So Luke is trying to convince other Jews, and this is simply one way to do it. By the standards of the time, Luke is doing nothing unethical if he makes up people to connect Jesus to David. From there, of course, he is taking the lineage of David, but the person that did that was under no compulsion to be completely accurate, either.

There, you have a definitive answer, altho not the one you wanted.

 

[lucaspa]

Genesis cannot be wholly true if there was no six days and no flood. That would have to deleted from scripture to make it 'wholly true' in the perceptions of many in this forum.

In this case, "wholly true" does not need to include being completely historically accurate. It is a semantic game you are playing. The Bible only needs to be theologically true in order to be "wholly true". It doesn't need to be true to every last detail.

If you say it does, then the only possible conclusion is that the Bible is not true, since Genesis 2:4 says clearly that there was no 6 days; all creation took place within one day.

Keep it up, Buck, you will be able to destroy Christianity yet!

 

[Ark Guy]

Lucaspa, might I refer you to post 16.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, might I refer you to post 16.

You can, but it's mostly irrelevant to the OP or my reply. All you are doing is trying to reconcile contradictions between the lineages. I didn't address that.

I simply said the lineages were wrong from the get-go because Joseph isn't the father of Jesus.

The only relevant part of post #16 is this:

3) This verse shows us in what way Christ was the Son of David. If Mary was the daughter of Eli, then Jesus was strictly a descendent of David, not only "legally", through his reputed father, but "actually", by direct personal descent, through his mother.

This shows the point I was making: the lineages were constructed post-hoc for the express purpose of having Jesus be of the house of David. Thanks for the support.

Since there is an ulterior motive here (to make Jesus fulfill prophecy whether he did so or not), then they are suspect. Any of the names between David and Jesus could be fabricated. Who could check? David had so many concubines and illegal kids, who would have kept track of them all?

BTW, why are you so certain Eli is the same as Heli?