• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

To Build a Fire

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
From start of 4 BC to start of 29 AD is 33 years. I don't understand why this is part of the discussion.

OK so let's assume Jesus was born in 4 BC
1 yr old at 3 BC
2 yr old at 2 BC
3 yr old at 1 BC
4 yr old at AD 1
5 yr old at AD 2
15 yr old at AD 12
25 yr old at AD 22
30 yr old at AD 27
33 yr old at AD 30

"from the start of" is not how we count out age, and regardless, the fact that there is no year 0 means that 33 years from 4 BC is AD 30, not AD 29.

The reason this is a part of the discussion is that Jazer claims:
Adam born in 4004 BC
Christ born exactly 2000 years later in 4 BC
Christ dies at age 33 in AD 29 <--- ERROR!!!!!
Asteroid closely misses us in AD 2029 marking the beginning of the tribulation.

Why razeontherock decided to move the conversation here I do not know. Why neither of you can understand that the lack of a 0 in the year system changes the end date I also do not know, but your apparent lack of basic math doesn't change the outcome.
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In other cultures you are born at age 1, and on your 1st birthday you are considered to be 2. I wonder how that was in Jesus' day?

It's neither here nor there. Look, I have two numbering systems, the first is the set of integers

{ -n...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3...n }

The second is the set of integers with the 0 removed

{ -n...-3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3...n }

Any range that crosses the missing value is going to have a different result in the two sets, that's just the way it is. One of them has more numbers than the other.

If I add 1 to -1 I get 0
If I add 1 year to 1 BC I get AD 1, because there is no year 0.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟30,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I did not have an objective. I bought a book: "catching fire" and brought it up for discussion. All of a sudden so called evolutionists started to argue against the book. That is the same as an arguement against evolution.
It's not.
 
Upvote 0
It's not.
To argue against a very highly rated book on evolution is not the same as to argue against evolution? This is a book recommended by The New York Times Book Review, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, The Harvard Brain. So the only conclusion I can draw is the dissidents on this board are more then just anti religion.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟30,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
To argue against a very highly rated book on evolution is not the same as to argue against evolution? This is a book recommended by The New York Times Book Review, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, The Harvard Brain. So the only conclusion I can draw is the dissidents on this board are more then just anti religion.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. (And frankly, after you completely missed the point of my paternity test analogy, I'm not sure how to make it clearer.)

No one is arguing that humans didn't evolve into their present form. It's just that some people are sceptical that cooking had much to do with it.
 
Upvote 0
No one is arguing that humans didn't evolve into their present form. It's just that some people are sceptical that cooking had much to do with it.
People argue about raw food versed cooked food. In the Rocky movie he would eat raw eggs. Somehow a raw egg was suppose to be better for you then a cooked egg. For me I liked cooked food. It kills off bacteria that can be harmful and cooked food is easier & faster to digest. So this book backs up what I believe. If you like raw food, then perhaps you would disagree with the book.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟30,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
People argue about raw food versed cooked food. In the Rocky movie he would eat raw eggs. Somehow a raw egg was suppose to be better for you then a cooked egg. For me I liked cooked food. It kills off bacteria that can be harmful and cooked food is easier & faster to digest. So this book backs up what I believe. If you like raw food, then perhaps you would disagree with the book.
What do my tastes have to do with anything? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,546
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It's neither here nor there.

Sure it is! The destination year is Jesus' age of 33. How that was measured is pivotal to this little micro-cosm of the discussion that arose, perhaps even in a different thread. ^_^ I neglected to factor that in at first, and here you're doing it.
 
Upvote 0
The destination year is Jesus' age of 33.
The actual destination is the day of Pentacost when Peter was preaching in the upper room and the Holy Spirit was first poured out. This was the beginning of the Church. So you add 2000 years from that day and you have the 2000 year anniversity of the church. If a day is 1000 years then that would be the end of the second day. Dispensationalists tend to think that the third day will be the 1000 year reign of Christ. The beginning of the 7th day from Adam when man will rest from his works. It took 7 days (7000 years) for God to create this world. Then Adam made a mess out of things. So it will take God another 7000 years to straighten it out. If this world is almost 14 billion years old, then 14,000 years is not much of anything at all in comparison. Adam actually showed up on the 8th day and that was 6,000 years ago (5,982). So we have about 18 more years to go before we can expect a final show down between the Hebrews and the Muslims.

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of GalileeJhn 2:1

:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,546
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The actual destination is the day of Pentacost when Peter was preaching in the upper room and the Holy Spirit was first poured out. This was the beginning of the Church.

I agree with you on that much! :thumbsup: (Jesus was 33 at the time? Did they record age as we do, or as Spaniards do?)
 
Upvote 0