Question on biblical world age vs. scientific.

[GREYBEAR]

During one of the periods that I was unemployed recently, I took a computer A-1 certification course, and the Instructor was a fundamentalist Christian who believed that the earth as taught by the bible is only about 5000+ years old. Now this is a man who had several college degrees, including I believe an engineering degree. In spite of this he believed that the world isn't as old billions of years old. He actually told me that all carbon dating is wrong, and stated reasons that were so above my understanding, that I couldn't remember a thing he said to save my life. I stated that at the time that the bible says that the world was created that there were cities in what is now China that had populations in the thousand if not hundred of thousands, and that the Australian Aborigine trace their verbal history back at least 30,000 years. This individual said that couldn't be and that science was wrong. Now what I would like to know and ask is how with all the scientific knowledge that has opened the world in just the last 50 years could anyone with a higher education than mine think that the bible is this certain. I know that this is kind of like the bible vs. evolution chat that is on going, but I recently ran into this guy and I remembered his beliefs on this and had to ask here, as I know what he would say. <_<

:beer: :rapid:

[Swordslinger]

I'll butt out of this, (maybe) because you are trying to bait my brethren that believe the world to be 6000 yrs old. The Word of God dosnt teach that, as I have explained adnausium before. They have the most important thing figured out, the rest will come.

The easiest way to prove that the world is older to unbelievers is to show them fossil records.

The easiest way to show believers, is to show them fossil records and the book of Genesis.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
.
.
.
.
.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Between v.1 and v.2 There is an unknown time of duration pehaps lasting millions of years, during which an unknown number of events took place. The words used "without form , and void" in the original language are "Tohu va Bohu"

Tohu= a ruin, vacancy
Bohu= to lay waste

This word in the original language is only used twice in scripture. The other one is here.
Jerimiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

It goes on to describe the destruction. It says "no man", but describes later that they were destroyed.

Could it be that there were many people here before? Could this be the vision that God gave him of the pre-Adamic times? A group that was destroyed? Could this be where all of the ancient artifacts come from?

If you read along in Genesis, you will find that man was charged with the responsibility to "replenish" the earth. How could one replenish something that had never been filled.

Genesis 1:28
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,"


Is that what you expected this Christian to say? Just curious? :)



Brethren, please know that this is another trap. Personally, I recomend we make a pact to ignore these baited traps, and stick to it!! Anyone with me? :rolleyes:

[Tunug]

I agree.... I mean... this very subject has been discussed just a couple days ago in this forum. Well, as a matter of fact, you and I have both posted these Bible verses that show that the Bible does not specifically limit the beginnings of the earth to 6000 years ago... many of us have been trying to say that just because some Christians may have some details wrong it doesn't mean that Christianity in itself is a farse... it just means that we are all human and make mistakes... regardless if we worship the one true Creator or false gods. I suppose it would be one thing if unbelievers asked us these questions so they could make sense of Christianity, but so far in the last few days, all I have seen unbelievers here do is try to throw things at us that are potential errors in Christianity, we try to show them that they are mere human errors in the interpretation of God's perfect plan. So, they then ignore these facts and focus on more human errors... all in a spirit of antagonization, all in a spirit of trying to snare us, and then say "aha! your religion is full of flaws, you puny minded Christians!" then as we get angry for being antagonized they say "aha! you are no better than anyone else!" well, YES!! We are no better! Religions are flawed! Religions are created by humans who err. God is still real, He does not err, and it is up to ALL who seek the truth to try to understand the difference between human error and God's real Truth!

Since we have been given our own corner for religion, we are now a better target for persecution, and it is bringing out the worst in some forum members who would like to see us fail therefore giving them leverage in seeking to discredit our Creator. And some of us believers, including myself, have made the mistake of falling for the trap and have become angry. We don't need to fall for this trap by trying to defend our beliefs to those who would like to see us fail. We would love to defend our beliefs to those who are truly seeking wisdom. So please, no offence to anyone, but I would also like to ignore the trappings unless someone would sincerly like to learn. I have learned a lot from my fellow believers in Christ here in this forum, and I would like to keep my discussions limited to those with open minds. Otherwise, I too will not debate my beliefs with someone who is hell bent on trying to make me look like a stoopid Christian... because, that I surely AM NOT.

[YourLocalNerd]

I believe the above 2 posts pretty much summed it all up :)

GJ u 2 :beer:

[kravman4]

Keep it friendly here guys. I don't see any baiting in Greybear's question - all I see is people over-reacting. <_<

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by kravman4@Jan 22 2005, 10:14 PM
Keep it friendly here guys. I don't see any baiting in Greybear's question
:blink: Unfriendly? Who's been unfriendly? You dont have to be Spirit inspired to see what is going on here. If anyone could see that, I would think that it would be you, krav. :)

If the tones of my voice did not carry over the keyboard, I said that in a friendly careing voice. :)

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by GREYBEAR@Jan 22 2005, 07:24 PM
Now what I would like to know and ask is how with all the scientific knowledge that has opened the world in just the last 50 years could anyone with a higher education than mine think that the bible is this certain.
Sorry krav, I did find something that sounded unfreindly and here it is. My bad. ;)

You said to me once that you liked spirited debate, did you not? :)

It is quite easy to see that Christians are starting to be treated as 2nd class citizens right here in "Bill's beer servin multiculturalist church", (that was said in jest) :lol:

Not only that, but the moderaters insist that we not so much as defend our beliefs, lest it appear unfriendly.

Am I misunderstanding this here, if I am, feel free to correct me.

[Dorkface]

just because someone has a bunch of degrees doesnt mean they cant be wrong about something. after all he is only human.

[tri70]

Its really hard to say how old the Earth is from any standpoint christian or scienticfic. We can look at all the written records and go back from there to a point but I don't beleive we have found an accurate dating system for a thousand or million, billion, zillion or whatever years back. I post a link awhile back showing a place in TX with dino and human footprints fossilled together. I just look at it as a mystery to be solved when I see my Lord.

-let us not worry about yesterday for we can work for a better tommorrow, tri :usa:

[swill269]

:o
dorkface,

just because someone does not have a degree does not make them right either.

tunug,
you have refered to the bible scriptures at least twice recently as "fact" as inI suppose it would be one thing if unbelievers asked us these questions so they could make sense of Christianity, but so far in the last few days, all I have seen unbelievers here do is try to throw things at us that are potential errors in Christianity, we try to show them that they are mere human errors in the interpretation of God's perfect plan. So, they then ignore these facts and focus on more human errors... all in a spirit of antagonization, all in a spirit of trying to snare us, and then say "aha! your religion is full of flaws,

you snare yourself when you falsely declare the bible as "fact". you wish, hope, count on it being true fact but so far the more we/world investigates, the thinner the script gets.

you say; what are the odds that this world "evolved"; it is obviously "created", with nothing but antiquated, multitranslated private journals of spiritual dialog and no bibliography. real time evidence is being delivered everyday and authenticated/dated/located by geologist and archeologists and refused as fact by the faithful.

i can not help but ask you in the same frame of mind, how do you know you picked the right version of christianity; to the point you will condemn a "fellow christian" for the error of his ways and try to change them. all of the "facts" you base your "faith" on will not stand up in any court of law on earth. you have "no" facts, you have blind faith.

if you feel antagonized; i feel insulted by your trying to pass off myth and false history as "gospel". christianity is about; sacrifice, suffering, humility, fasting, denial, titheing, cleansing, repenting,etc. you should get use to "antagonism".

the debate is over fact or fiction and what version, and which you should believe.
:cool:

[Tunug]

Hey Swill!!! Thought ya were'nt talkin to me anymore! Welcome back!!

[cabdmd]

i can not help but ask you in the same frame of mind, how do you know you picked the right version of christianity; to the point you will condemn a "fellow christian" for the error of his ways and try to change them. all of the "facts" you base your "faith" on will not stand up in any court of law on earth. you have "no" facts, you have blind faith.

Hello swil,
The bible saye that: Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

So you see faith is essential, and what is faith. Here is the Biblical definition: What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see. Heb 11:1 NLT

The different denominations do hold different positions on minor issues, but if they agree on the essentials, then one doe not differ much from another. Here is a compilation of core items taken from the Christian Research Institute.

When we talk about the essentials of Christianity we're referring to the basic elements that make up and characterize our faith, and which, of course, separate it from other beliefs. Let's survey these doctrines.

First, we believe in the authority of Scripture, which is another way of saying that the Bible is God's inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. It's the ultimate source for knowledge about God, as well as the definitive guide for our daily lives.

Next we affirm the existence of a triune God or one God in three distinct persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This God is self-existent, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, holy, righteous, and loving. God created the universe from nothing and He rules over His creation sovereignly including both human and angelic beings.

We also hold that man is a physical and spiritual being who is created in God's image. But because of his sin or transgression, man has lost his fellowship with God. The extent of sin is so great that its effects continue to this very day in the form of cruelty, suffering, and death.

By God's grace, Jesus Christ - Who is fully God and fully man - was sent to save us from our bondage to sin. We believe that Christ was born of a virgin, died for our sins, physically rose from the dead, and will one day return to judge the world and deliver His people. Faith in Christ is the only means by which mankind can escape eternal damnation and judgment.

Finally, we recognize the church as God's ordained institution headed by Christ. The church is composed of all believers, and is organized for worship, for fellowship, for the administration of the sacraments, for spiritual growth and support, and for evangelizing the world.

[darjeeling]

The biggest problem I have with admitting the perfection and infallibility of the bible is that it was inspired. Man can never be perfect in his action, and even when filled with God's grace the human component is prone to error. Man can not perfectly interpret and translate the messages given to him by God, or else man would be damn near omnipotent. As they say, "To err is human, perfection is God's domain alone."

:Edit:

To defend Bill, I think its not so much that he dislikes or desires to persecute Christians. The Christians here are filled with righteous zeal, and desire to spread the word to all comers (at least some of them). There is nothing wrong with that, but it can be annoying at times. There is a time and place for everything, and we must remember that it was Bill who blessed us with the PerfectUnion BBS, adn gave us a place to diuscuss guns (and indirectly, religion). We must respect his desires, he is the master of this 'house', and its his rules!

[kravman4]

Swill, you say: real time evidence is being delivered everyday and authenticated/dated/located by geologist and archeologists and refused as fact by the faithful.


What's the evidence?

Also, here's something for all you guys to chew on. (Taken from one of my favorite website! :D Here's a link to the original article:Carbon dating and other forms of measuring the age of the earth. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp))

This is kind of lengthy excerpt (the full article is about 3x longer) but it is very interesting. Not too dry either! ;)

How the carbon clock works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4

Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.


--edited for spelling--

[darjeeling]

Krav, that's all spiffy and such, but probably overblown. To accept that, we'd have to accept the flood at face value. I'm no geologist, but even with all of the worlds available water in the oceans, the world still wouldn't be submerged. Either

A) the continents spread their masses underneath the great expanse of the ocean, and then grouped together again to peak above the waves. Note it is more likely to win the lottery a trillion times straight than for this to happen (and live long enough to do this, and have the lottery run this long and still take your money :eek: ), the laws of thermodynamics and game theory state that reverse-direction energy flow on this magnitude is so unlikely that for all purposes it is impossible.

B) The laws of conservation of matter were violated on a massive scale (Quadrillions of kilograms of land matter), and then violated again in the opposite direction. Googleplexes of times less likely than already next to impossible result A.

C) Much of the land mass of the world was tranlocated to an extraterestrial location. Probablilty: many times less than A.

D) B in reverse. Instead of land mass being destroyed then created, a greater ammount of water is created and then destroyed. Probablility: thousands of times less then B

Basically, you'd have a better chance of being reverted to quarks, and then being reformed and still living after that than these possibilities.

Also, carbon dating has been pretty reliable for objects we already know the age of. The uncertianty is definately under 6000 years at the top (and least reliable end). Plus there are other radioactive decay aging processes that go back billions of years which are less suseptable to intake error. Carbon 14 was the 1st and shortest reaching of decay dating. We will find others.

[tri70]

you have take in account that the Earth is covered by 75% water and alot of it is unexplored and miles deep. Look how long it took to find the Titanic, then think about the tsunami that just happened and how much it change the land. How many times has this happened in history?? Has the oceans always been that deep?? How much water is store in ice form at the polar caps?? Can California fall into the ocean??? We know volcanoes create islands but we have seen earthquakes that create tidal waves take the land back. There is to much information to gather from an ever change planet, finding the fossils in the high places all around the world is pretty convincing for me.

To each there own, tri :usa:

[darjeeling]

Well, thats what I took into account for case A and C. Tsunamis dont really move water as much as they send energy through water. The ammount that water travels due to these is negligable except at the shorelines. The massive damage done there was with an infitessimal percentage of the worlds water. True, there is enough water to coat the world hundreds of feet deep. But, and this is a big but, many 'general coorelation' laws of physics and chemistry would have to run in the opposite direction to their normal flow at rates of coincidence that would make those with blind faith shudder.

[Dorkface]

Originally posted by swill269@Jan 22 2005, 08:16 PM
:o
dorkface,

just because someone does not have a degree does not make them right either.

thats exactly my point.

the only time a "degree" would hold any kind of relevance to a quesiton would be if the degree were in a feild that is provable. like math. 2+2=4. definate and finite. we can prove with out a shadow of doubt that this is true.

even if someone has a degree in biblical studies they cant say definatly weather god exists or not. therefore their degree doesnt really have any weight to it when it comes to his existance. because in the end after you read all information and talk to everyone you can about the existance of god you are still left with the fact that you have to make a leap of faith; either you think he exists or you think he doesnt. in the end you have to go by what your gut says.

[cabdmd]

It is really like the blind man in John, chapter 9 who said 'I was blind, now I see'.
That was finite, even the religious rulers of the day could not refute the fact. They only wanted to discredit Jesus. I would suggest that receiving 'spiritual sight' is no less a miracle, but it is not clearly and physically discernable. Still if you have a testimony of knowing God and say how the Lord has changed you from the inside out people can't refute that either. When people use the phrase 'knowing the Lord' it does not mean knowing about. You can know about President Bush, but you don't have a relationship with him.
This may not be a perfect analogy, but this could be compared to riding a bicycle.
If you don't know how to ride, and I talk about it. You are still in the dark about it. If I show you how to ride. You can watch but still don't get it.
If you get on the bicycle and ride it you understand completely.

[Tunug]

http://www.perfectunion.com/forums/index.p...showtopic=13620 (http://www.perfectunion.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13620)

[swill269]

:o
tunug,

i would like to give you a little perspective on your cambrian explosion theory (no fossils prior to) and the absence of the "missing link".

in 1975 the underwater submersible "alvin" was able to dive deeper than any manned submersible in history. the operator and photographer were investigating super heated vents when they discovered life at -3000 feet and no "sun" light. (sun light , up until then was thought to be a must have primary ingrediant for life.) bacteria living on hot sulfuric acid (300-400 degrees F) was the life source for hundreds of previously unknown plants/animals. that was only 30 years ago and to this day scientists average finding a "new species" every ten days. :eek: :eek: :eek: they have since found bacteria living on methane at the bottom of another food chain supporting hundres of new species with out sun light. :ph34r: :beer: :lol: we have only explored 1% of the earth's oceans.

we only know what we know, we have no idea what we don't know.

i don't know what this does for you; it sure moves my needle! :confused:
:cool:

[Tunug]

I would not be all that surprised if we find signs of life on other planets... in fact I hope we do!! I remember seeing a special on tv a few years back about the life they found living off of hot vents in total darkness... I find it fascinating!

The cambrian explosion is still the oldest evidence of life (on earth); which contradicts evolution's theory of origins. In fact, the fossil record from the cambrian explosion until now supports the second law of thermodynamics, which also contradicts evolution's theory of origins.

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by darjeeling@Jan 23 2005, 04:35 AM
I'm no geologist, but even with all of the worlds available water in the oceans, the world still wouldn't be submerged.
The Scriptures do not teach that in the original language. The word used that is translated "earth" in the King James is quite off the mark. In Fact, that word, "eh-rets" is translated correctly many, many mores time as "land" or "that land". This can be easily studied by anyone with a Strong's Concordance. Also to futher drive the point home for those that care enough to study it out. When Cain was driven out by God, he(Cain) said, " Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth". The word is different from the one used in the flood story, but the point is the same, in that, he did not climb aboard a space ship and leave the face of the earth.

Futher more, Hebrew word, "ararat" simply means "high hills". So that would discourage the many that went to Mount Ararat looking for the ark.

As I type this, I am looking at a drawing from England that dates back to the early 1800s, that places the flood in the Tarim Basin area. There is also many proofs of different races, (all of them) in just a short period after the flood. There are so many vast differences in the races, the pastors that teach that each one of Noah's son went to a different area, and adapted......I hate to tell em.....but thats evolution.
We know that Noah was of the race of Adam, and so were his sons. In fact, the word used in Genesis when it says, "Noah was perfect in his generations" the root word is "pedigree".

It is certain that all of the earth was under water at one point in time or another, but not at the same time. We must look to scientific evidence also, and when you do it with an open mind, you find that the Bible and science do not disagree at all. But what man has taught, does contradict science....but it also contradict the Bible.

This is strong meat when you consider that in most churches, only milk is served. Its easy to understand, if you have the desire to search it out.

Proverbs 25:2
" It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

[darjeeling]

Exactly Swordslinger! The churches for the last 300 years have been selling wiskey cut with water and saying its 100 proof (excuse my analogy). I'm not so much disputing the parable as much as the length to which it has been extrapolated too.

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by darjeeling@Jan 25 2005, 11:43 PM
Exactly Swordslinger!* The churches for the last 300 years have been selling wiskey cut with water and saying its 100 proof (excuse my analogy).* I'm not so much disputing the parable as much as the length to which it has been extrapolated too.
You would be surprized at how fast, what I wrote above, will get you kicked out of church.http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-10/869127/smiley_thinking.gifThat discourages many from speaking up in church when they discover something as simple as the flood. But by no means should it turn someone from Christ, just because those that are charged with keeping the flock, chooses the politicaly correct route. But it does. :( Its a shame.

I do know men that learned the truth and refused to speak it out of fear of loosing thier jobs. Thats why Paul "made tents", so he could eat, and teach the truth of God's Word. ;)

[darjeeling]

It is very sad. I think you would have fun reading Soren Kierkeegard's Attack Upon Christiandom. Please note, this is not an attack on Christianity, but Christendom as he describes it; Kierkeegard was quite the dedicated Christian. He Rails against the terrible effrontery done to God that his national church had done. Although this was written 150 years ago, it is very applicable to todays church.

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by darjeeling@Jan 26 2005, 01:18 AM
Although this was written 150 years ago, it is very applicable to todays church.
Probably more so. When I look at documents from 150 years ago, (I collect old books on Christian subjects) I find way more truth than in the accepted church es today.

For example: A history text book used in colleges in the mid to late 1800s. The authors name is H. Winchell, the Title of the book is "The pre-Adamites, a history of men before Adam". He cover the flood I believe, and put it in the Tarim Basin area of Turkistan. This is a book written by a devoutly Christian scholar. A man devoted to telling the truth, no matter what the cost.

As a result, today, now that the teaching is not politicaly correct, .....well....just try to find a copy. There has been a great book burning in this country, and our children are the victims. I had to do a search and have it shiped from out west. It was not the in the best shape, but all of the pages were there. I refered to it many times in a book that Im writing, but then loaned it out and ...well http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-10/869127/smiley_thinking.gif all I can say is, never loan a book. ;)

[tinman]

Hey Greybear, havent talked to you in awhile. Got a little busy. Sorry about the job thing, hope its working out. Cant say Im more educated than you are, Ive met you, your a real history buff and a friend. What I can tell you is that carbon testing is all relative, inaccurate after time and quite often counter-productive. Im sure you understand the reasoning for this statement. There is also another theory out there with evidence of truth, it is not widely accepted because it breaks off from typical beliefs. It may help in your quest for knowledge, in part it is a repeat of SS wordslinger. It goes something like this-
Thousands of tablets were found on the site of the palace of King Assur-bani-pal where once stood the city of Sennacherib. These are copies of the originals and date back to 700bc. The more intelligent historians become with the Babylonian inscriptions it becomes evident that the genesis stories came down in two streams, one from the descendents of Seth and the other through Cain of Babylon(NOD) Unfortunatly out of bias much has been considered Babylonian myth rather than truth and has been rejected. A further look into these inscriptions suggest that-
(1)Although Adam was the first MAN God breathed a "living soul" he was not the first human being(more on that another time)
(2) That cain was driven away and a mark was placed upon him as protection of unknown people.
(3) That Cain journeyed into another country and the inhabitants were black.
(4) That Cain, a white man endowed with superhuman knowledge and Physique took command over the people , built a city and named it Enoch after his son.
In both streams the creation story as found in Genesis remains the same.
Both the Bible and modern science indicate that blacks were pre-adamites. The Bible by showing that only eight of of Adams race were saved in the ark demands a belief in a previous black race to account for the existance of of blacks in later history, for how could the Ethiopian who the prophet remarks , could no more change his skin than the leopard his spots, have descended from Noah?
The problem with this theory is that it rules out the great flood unless the word earth is used in the right context. The hebrew word "ERETZ" has been translated to mean "all the earth". However the word eretz also means country, land or distict. It is used in its correct form when Cain said "Behold thou has driven out this day from the face of the earth".
I would say more but I only type with two index fingers, loose one and I cut my typing speed in half (lol).

[swill269]

:o
i see nobody has settled this yet, still throwin' notes and quotes from the PAST.

are we just going to ignore/disregard new info, technology, archeology, geology, anthropology, etc. in the name of ancient theology? :ph34r:

i see three types of individuals:
1. religious; believe and practice daily, some sort of religious order.
2. agnostic; unsure, believe/practice enough just in case there is something to it.
3. atheist; does not believe/practice any religious order or recognize "god/gods".

someday everyone will get it right, until then everybody is preaching from seperate pulpits and no two sermons are the same.

sorry to interupt, carry on, good luck sorting it out. millions have tried for thousands of years. one religion, one philosophy, one god ain't gonna' happen in this millennium either. ;)
:cool:

[tinman]

To summarize my last post, The Bible suggests pre-adamites, The Babylonian inscriptions suggest pre-adamites, science suggests pre-adamites and Greybear suggests the aborigine are pre-adamites. So wheres the conflict?