The timeline of the Bible

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

According to the Bible, life, the universe, and everything is only about 6000 years old.

---

​

False.

---

Since you have provided no justification for your claim, the only conclusion is that you're talking out of your ass. You keep trying to claim that this is "anachronistic," but you continue to fail to provide any justification."Kitchen says so" is not sufficient. You need to provide the evidence that the genealogy of Adam is something other than direct, father/son lineage considering that the genealogy come straight off a description of direct father/son lineages and uses the exact same words attached to the exact same people.Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

quote:

---

The "earth" is mentioned (and exists) in Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, BEFORE Day 1.

---

Indeed, to specifically say that god created it since it didn't exist.But, that is off topic. Please start your own thread.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Um, you do realize that the entire point of this thread is that we do?

---

​

Then the entire point is wrong. Do we need another thread to argue that? Your initial point is wrong.

---

No, this is the thread to do it. However, your attempts to bring Matthew into it are off topic as they do not provide any information regarding how long things have been around. Matthew does not tell us that when Genesis says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, that it really means something else.Are you saying that when Genesis 5 says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, that was a lie? Adam wasn't 130? That the use of 130 was a metaphor for something else? If so, what was it and where do we find the contextual clues to indicate that meaning?Matthew, being a Christian text, really can't help us because Genesis was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in Jewish context.The rest of your post is off topic. Please start your own thread.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:[Off-topic blather deleted for space. Start your own thread.]

quote:

---

According to Acts 7:2-3, God appeared to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeans an called him to "come out from your land and frm your relatives, and come into the land which I will show you."

---

Indeed, Acts and Genesis contradict each other. Considering that Acts was written nearly two millenia after Genesis by a completely different religious tradition, I am not surprised.At any rate, you're talking about a difference of less than 100 years. Even if we go along with your interpretation, we're still talking about only around 6000 years from the beginning to now.Everything else in your post was off-topic. Start your own thread.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:[off-topic commentary deleted for space]Well, whaddaya know. Nothing left.Start your own thread.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kbertsche responds to me:[off-topic commentary deleted for space]Well, whaddaya know. Nothing left.Start your own thread.(Hint: The site has a search function. Use it.)

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

My complaint is with your dogmatic statement that the Bible says "the universe" and "everything" are "only about 6000 years old." I have already provided evidence that this is wrong in Message 29 and Message 35, but you have declared this "off-topic".

---

That's because they violated the original post. You did read the original post, didn't you?

quote:

---

But don't think (or claim) that your assumption of it makes it actually true!

---

I never claimed that they did. You did read the original post, didn't you? I presented a scenario where the idea of 6000 years makes no sense. However, the reason I am rejecting such responses is because they require an interpretation that words don't actually mean what they mean such as a "day" not being a day but rather indeterminate years, "the beginning" not actually being the beginning but some unspecified time later, etc.All I wanted to establish in this thread was that taking the text at its word where words mean what they mean, only about 6000 years of time have been accounted for given the specific numbers listed for the amount of years that take place between certain events and the attachment of that timeline to an actual event in history.If you want to discuss why the text should not be taken at its word, that's fine. Start a new thread. It's a PRATT (and the site has a search function for you to see how we've already discussed it to death), but you are perfectly free to bring it up again. Just not here.No censorship, no suppression, I just don't want to get sidetracked.Start your own thread.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

after so many pages of arguing over...umm... something or other

​

has anyone worked out where we are in the stream of time yet???

---

We're still at only about 6000 years. Depending upon a few possible ways of assigning time, it's give or take fewer than 200 years. We're certainly nowhere near the amount of time life, the universe, and everything has been around.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

does that mean you've changed your belief in a 6,000 year old earth?

---

Huh? Where did I say I thought the earth was only 6000 years old?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

What are you, the site Moderator of your own thread ?

---

Yes. If you don't like it, start your own.I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

the word created is only used in Genesis for a limited number of things

---

Irrelevant. There is no significance to use the of "bara" that makes it something mystical. The use of "bara" as opposed to "asah" is not indicative of anything special just as English "create," "made," "fashioned," etc. do not indicate anything special.After all, Genesis 1 uses both words to describe the origin of humans: If there were truly some sort of mystical significance to the use of "bara," why would god talk about "making" humans using "asah"?

quote:

---

And if Rrhain boasts so much that only the Jews understand Genesis

---

Incorrect. Please show me where I have ever said anything that even approaches "only the Jews" understand Genesis.What I have said, what I have always said, is that Genesis was written by Jews and for Jews and thus can only be understood in a Jewish context. This hardly means that only Jews understand it. It simply means that trying to impose a Christian interpretation on it immediately fails.

quote:

---

I would like to know how many orthodox Jewish readers of Genesis would agree with his insistence in a 6,000 year old universe from the text of Genesis.

---

(*chuckle*)You do understand the difference between "literal" and "metaphorical," yes? At any rate, the answer is that they all agree that the Bible gives a timeline of about 6000 years since, after all, the Jewish calendar (which counts from the beginning of everything) has the year being 5770.Of course, that requires a literal interpretation. I acknowledged this up front. Is there a reason why you keep forgetting this and trying to make it personal?And since when did Orthodox Judaism become the sole arbiter of Judaism?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

Even Jewish thought includes a concept that inspite of 24 hour solar days in Genesis, the creation event could have taken place billions of years before the six days.

---

Then why does the Jewish calendar, which starts from the beginning, place the year at only 5770?Oh, that's right: Because the text says only about 6000 years have passed. If one starts saying that it isn't supposed to be taken literally, then anything is possible. Of course, I admitted this up front. Is there a reason why you keep forgetting that and trying to make it personal?

quote:

---

My point is that if you are going to attempt to make Genesis "off limits" to non-Jews to interpret

---

Where have I ever said anything that even hints at that? Full quotes in complete context, please.Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.What I have said is what I have always said: Genesis was written by Jews and for Jews and thus can only be understood in a Jewish context. This hardly means that non-Jews can't understand it. I can study ancient Norwegian mythology and understand it without having to be a Viking.Instead, what it means is that I cannot impose other conceptualizations of the world on top of it and expect to be taken seriously.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

But the calling of Abraham was clear.

---

And how, exactly, does this make the timeline of the Bible something other than about 6000 years?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

if anyone wants to know what the Bible says about how long ago the creation came into being out of nothing, geneologies one way or another are irrelevant.

---

So when the text says that Adam was 130 years old when he sired Seth, it doesn't really mean that?Shall we spin the merry-go-round another time?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:Well, no. No, he doesn't. He wanders off topic. Let's try it again, shall we?I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Huh? Where did I say I thought the earth was only 6000 years old?

---

​

I get that impression from your opening post...

---

There is a difference between understanding an argument and actually holding it. That said, my opening post makes no such claim about my thoughts. You added some highlighting to a sentence, but you seem to have missed the key point: You highlighted the final clause, beginning with "through a process of simple addition...." You missed the key point: "I say that while THE BIBLE does not give a specific date, IT does give a specific timeline."I do not need to be a Viking to be able to understand and analyze the various myths and legends and determine what they say about how the world is supposed to end in Ragnarok. I do not need to actually believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible to understand and analyze it and determine what it says about how old the world is.I certainly apologize if I was misleading. I would have thought my previous history of arguing for an old age of the universe, the geologic column, no worldwide flood, etc. would be sufficient to indicate that I am simply arguing textual analysis here, not my personal opinion.I try very hard to keep my personal religious beliefs out of this forum. I don't want people to respond to me by saying, "Of course you'd say that. You're an X." However, I think it is very clear that I disagree with theologies that place the origin of everything just a few thousand years ago. Just in case it still isn't clear, a direct statement:I agree with the evidence from astronomy, geology, and biology that life, the universe, and everything is very old. The earth is a bit over 4 billion years old with life following right on its heels. The universe is nearly 14 billion years old, from what we can tell.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.