1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Jan '10 05:591 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Bishop James Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.

    Do you think you know more about this than him? That you are a better christian? He did extensive research about the chronology adn work backwards in time, using bible as his source. Do you think the bible is wrong?

    Shame...
    well seeing that you give great credence to his findings perhaps you would like to detail his chronology and then we may publicly determine and make an evaluation for ourselves.

    Assertions like , do you think you know more than him, do you think you are better than him shall been treated with the contempt they deserve.
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    25 Jan '10 06:152 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    well seeing that you give great credence to his findings perhaps you would like to detail his chronology and then we may publicly determine and make an evaluation for ourselves.

    Assertions like , do you think you know more than him, do you think you are better than him shall been treated with the contempt they deserve.
    This fellow Urssher is googable. His chronology can be find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

    The main part of his chronology is this:
    4004 BC - Creation
    2348 BC - Noah's Flood
    1921 BC - God's call to Abraham
    1491 BC - The Exodus from Egypt
    1012 BC - Founding of the Temple in Jerusalem
    586 BC - Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity
    4 BC - Birth of Jesus

    I read somewhere that he even put out the time of day with a rather narrow precision. Well, he was inspired by his god and did a quite remarkable work.

    [edit]
    As I don't belive in the christian religion, I don't find there is nothing for me to know.
    But I know some about the christian religion and their followers, and that's the part I find interesting.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Jan '10 06:26
    how does he get from the flood to the creation?
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    25 Jan '10 07:06
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    how does he get from the flood to the creation?
    I don't know, he did extensive research of the chronology and genealogy from the bible, and deduced and relied on the holy spirit to get everything right, I suppose. I certainly prayed every day to be adviced and corrected if needed from the allmighty. I don't know, what do you think?
  5. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    25 Jan '10 07:11
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Most would acknowledge a spiritual/metaphorical reading.
    Agreed. And that swearing upon the Bible is an oath to try to uphold the basic principles of truth an honesty in a big picture sense, not in trying to weasel out of those principles in the loopholes of fact that one is going to find in the Bible.
  6. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    27626
    25 Jan '10 13:15
    One need not swear an oath upon the bible (in the US at least). One has the option of swearing an oath or affirmation. Neither Teddy Roosevelt nor John Adams were sworn in on a bible.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Jan '10 14:481 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I don't know, he did extensive research of the chronology and genealogy from the bible, and deduced and relied on the holy spirit to get everything right, I suppose. I certainly prayed every day to be adviced and corrected if needed from the allmighty. I don't know, what do you think?
    i think hes talking nonsense. why? simply because you cannot determine that a creative day is a thousand years, thus the assertion that the bible states that the creative days were a thousand years each and that creation took six thousand years is unsubstantiated. we are interested in truth, not what is merely speculated upon. he has made his assertion from an erroneous standpoint and thus has drawn a wrong conclusion. its the same with the trinitarians, they have also adopted a wrong premise and sought to establish it through inference, however, anything based on an assumption is simply castles made of sand and will fall into the sea, eventually. what you might find is that he is speaking of the creation of man, not of the earth and the cosmos etc.
  8. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    25 Jan '10 15:00
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i think hes talking nonsense. why? simply because you cannot determine that a creative day is a thousand years, thus the assertion that the bible states that the creative days were a thousand years each and that creation took six thousand years is unsubstantiated. we are interested in truth, not what is merely speculated upon. he has made his asse ...[text shortened]... u might find is that he is speaking of the creation of man, not of the earth and the cosmos etc.
    I think he has the same critics towards you. From my point of view it's not more than one christian vew against anothers, both claiming they have the Divine Truth. This is very common within the christian sphere, even to the extent that wars are declared and thousands of lives are destroyed.

    You say that another christian is talking nonsense. Do you mind when other christians are saying that you're talking nonsense? Tooth for tooth, and all that?

    Of course noone can say, as a truth, that Earth is only thousands of years old, even million of years old, backed by the bible or not, that's crazy.
    The science says that the age of the universe is about 14 billion of years old and earth about 14.6 billion of years old.
    But I can accept any other age as a religious truth as long they don't tell that "Science says that...", because it isn't.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Jan '10 16:51
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I think he has the same critics towards you. From my point of view it's not more than one christian vew against anothers, both claiming they have the Divine Truth. This is very common within the christian sphere, even to the extent that wars are declared and thousands of lives are destroyed.

    You say that another christian is talking nonsense. Do you mi ...[text shortened]... a religious truth as long they don't tell that "Science says that...", because it isn't.
    the only problem of course is that i can prove that the creative days did not last a thousand years, he has no way of proving that they did. This is not one Christian view against another, it is a mere statement of fact. If they state that i am talking nonsense then they had better be able to substantiate the claim, otherwise its merely an opinion with no basis in truth. Science and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth.
  10. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    25 Jan '10 19:47
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    the only problem of course is that i can prove that the creative days did not last a thousand years, he has no way of proving that they did. This is not one Christian view against another, it is a mere statement of fact. If they state that i am talking nonsense then they had better be able to substantiate the claim, otherwise its merely an opinion ...[text shortened]... e and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth.
    I am pretty sure that he is not saying that the creative days lasted 1000 years. He is saying (if I understand it correctly) that you can work backwards from the birth of Christ all the way to Adam using the genealogical information in the Bible and that time period ammounts to 4000 years. This dates the events described in the first chapter of Genesis to around 4000bc or rougly 6000 years ago.

    He is of course very unlikely to be right.

    --- Penguin.
  11. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    25 Jan '10 19:581 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    the only problem of course is that i can prove that the creative days did not last a thousand years, he has no way of proving that they did. This is not one Christian view against another, it is a mere statement of fact. If they state that i am talking nonsense then they had better be able to substantiate the claim, otherwise its merely an opinion ...[text shortened]... e and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth.
    Science and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth

    And as long as the science doesn't contradict your interpretation of religious truth.

    I'd like to see a scientific paper that suggests humans only appearing on the earth 6,00yrs ago. Do you have a link to one Rob?! 😉
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Jan '10 20:39
    Originally posted by Penguin
    I am pretty sure that he is [b]not saying that the creative days lasted 1000 years. He is saying (if I understand it correctly) that you can work backwards from the birth of Christ all the way to Adam using the genealogical information in the Bible and that time period ammounts to 4000 years. This dates the events described in the first chapter of Genesi ...[text shortened]... d 4000bc or rougly 6000 years ago.

    He is of course very unlikely to be right.

    --- Penguin.[/b]
    yes this is more probable, for it can be chronologically determined when the creation of Adam took place, but not the actual creation of the physical universe etc.
  13. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    25 Jan '10 20:51
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes this is more probable, for it can be chronologically determined when the creation of Adam took place, but not the actual creation of the physical universe etc.
    Science is not about what we think is more probable. You have to back it up with science. If you cannot, it's not science, even if it happens to be true.

    Science and religion cannot mix, you know that. If your religious belief is that it can, it's your religious belief, it's not a scientific one.

    We've had this discussion before, and it's a dead end for you. After 200 postings you get cranky, you avoid questions that shows where your fault in your reasoning, and after that you start with personal attacks. We know that, we've had it numerous times before. Why bring it up again?

    If two christians have one opinion each, both different, in the same matter, both of them cannot be right.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Jan '10 20:56
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    [b]Science and religion are perfectly congruous, as long as one sticks to religious and scientific truth

    And as long as the science doesn't contradict your interpretation of religious truth.

    I'd like to see a scientific paper that suggests humans only appearing on the earth 6,00yrs ago. Do you have a link to one Rob?! 😉[/b]
    show me a piece of evidence that suggest we have evolved from apes in the relatively small period of the last eighty thousand years or so and i shall show you a theory based on postulation, dogma, unsubstantiated assertions and lack of evidence.
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Jan '10 21:00
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Science is not about what we think is more probable. You have to back it up with science. If you cannot, it's not science, even if it happens to be true.

    Science and religion cannot mix, you know that. If your religious belief is that it can, it's your religious belief, it's not a scientific one.

    We've had this discussion before, and it's a dead end ...[text shortened]... s have one opinion each, both different, in the same matter, both of them cannot be right.
    yes science is not what we think is probable, but in many instances that is indeed what it is. Would you like me to substantiate my assertion with the lack of evidence for transitory beings? You may look at any biology text book, and there you have it, assertions based on nothing but postulation, dogma a lack of palaeontological evidence and in some instances downright fraud, in fact, in many instances the evidence runs contrary to the theory, therefore new versions of the theory are adapted to accommodate this lack of harmony, so please Fabian, you had best be careful with what you term science, for it may be nothing of the sort.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree