PDA

View Full Version : Please Help Ancient civilization's older than 10,000 years debunk creation?



Fighting Instinct
Dec 20th 2008, 08:51 PM
I was posed a question by an atheist that is giving me a hard time. He says that there are civilizations that are older than how old the Bible says the world is. I have researched it a little and scientists and archeologists agree that they have found ancient civilizations that date back 100,000 years. How is this true if the earth, according to the Bible is between 10,000 and 6,000 years old? And I do not believe that the genealogies in Genesis are incomplete. Any help would be appreciated.

fishbowlsoul
Dec 20th 2008, 09:50 PM
I was posed a question by an atheist that is giving me a hard time. He says that there are civilizations that are older than how old the Bible says the world is. I have researched it a little and scientists and archeologists agree that they have found ancient civilizations that date back 100,000 years. How is this true if the earth, according to the Bible is between 10,000 and 6,000 years old? And I do not believe that the genealogies in Genesis are incomplete. Any help would be appreciated.

Civilization is a relative term depending on perspective. Civilization in archaeology is normally associated with permanent settlements and/or agriculture. The beginnings of agriculture go back roughly 10,000 years in or around the Fertile Crescent (modern day Iraq). The first civilization that is called a civilization is the Sumerians in modern day southern Iraq.
This is civilization began roughly around 6000 BC with permanent settlements.

So I am not sure what your atheist friend is refering to or the research you have come across but they are incorrect. Your friend may be refering to humans being around 100,000 years. According to DNA evidence humans have been around roughly 200,000 years. The earliest known fossils of humans have dated to around 130,000 years.

Romber
Dec 21st 2008, 04:10 AM
I was posed a question by an atheist that is giving me a hard time. He says that there are civilizations that are older than how old the Bible says the world is. I have researched it a little and scientists and archeologists agree that they have found ancient civilizations that date back 100,000 years. How is this true if the earth, according to the Bible is between 10,000 and 6,000 years old? And I do not believe that the genealogies in Genesis are incomplete. Any help would be appreciated.


First of all you need to realize that the atheist is under the influence of an Evolutionary Worldview hence the extraordinarily large ages. This will make any evidence he sees as "How can I make this fit the (fallacious)Evolutionary model?"

Second of all the dating methods your "friend" is trusting is not so...trustworthy. In order to even achieve such a date, many assumptions are needed to be made to even get off the ground to achieve the actual dating process. On top of this most dates are thrown out unless if they conform to "desired" results.

I would not take any dates any your "friends" tell you until science can produce a solid method of finding dates-not one that is not on such shaky, controversial ground.

Another note, most scientists will agree with anything in the evolutionary worldview. You won't find many creationist scientists disagreeing as they value their jobs.

Fighting Instinct
Dec 21st 2008, 05:53 AM
Civilization is a relative term depending on perspective. Civilization in archaeology is normally associated with permanent settlements and/or agriculture. The beginnings of agriculture go back roughly 10,000 years in or around the Fertile Crescent (modern day Iraq). The first civilization that is called a civilization is the Sumerians in modern day southern Iraq.
This is civilization began roughly around 6000 BC with permanent settlements.

So I am not sure what your atheist friend is refering to or the research you have come across but they are incorrect. Your friend may be refering to humans being around 100,000 years. According to DNA evidence humans have been around roughly 200,000 years. The earliest known fossils of humans have dated to around 130,000 years.

So how can this be if the universe is only around 10,000 years old?

fishbowlsoul
Dec 21st 2008, 06:08 AM
So how can this be if the universe is only around 10,000 years old?

Where do you get the universe or earth is only 10,000 years old? There is no scripture in the Bible stating how old the universe or earth is.

Joe King
Dec 21st 2008, 06:28 AM
So mankind has been around 100,000 years and only now we have the internet. The arrogance of the secular scientist is astounding. Talk about picking and choosing. Everything magically popped out of nothing and is billions of years old, but mankind chose to evolve 100,000 years ago.

Athanasius
Dec 21st 2008, 08:34 AM
I was posed a question by an atheist that is giving me a hard time. He says that there are civilizations that are older than how old the Bible says the world is. I have researched it a little and scientists and archeologists agree that they have found ancient civilizations that date back 100,000 years. How is this true if the earth, according to the Bible is between 10,000 and 6,000 years old? And I do not believe that the genealogies in Genesis are incomplete. Any help would be appreciated.

You'll have to be more specific, what exactly is your friend referring to when he says there are "civilizations" 100,000 years old?

You could probably argue semantics for hours; "what exactly is a civilization", but the point is innocuous. The force of your friends objection comes not because of a consensus between scientists regarding ancient civilizations, but because scientists agree that people existed at such a date in the past, well outside the 10,000 years you claim the Bible teaches.

Your best answer would probably come in the form of interpretation of evidence -- are the conclusions that have been made (by your friend and by others) evident or at all likely, or are there other interpretations which are just as likely? I think that's a rather good approach, at least it certainly beats deriding all scientists as "arrogant" and people as deceived because they believe in evolution.

Fighting Instinct
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:34 AM
You'll have to be more specific, what exactly is your friend referring to when he says there are "civilizations" 100,000 years old?

You could probably argue semantics for hours; "what exactly is a civilization", but the point is innocuous. The force of your friends objection comes not because of a consensus between scientists regarding ancient civilizations, but because scientists agree that people existed at such a date in the past, well outside the 10,000 years you claim the Bible teaches.

Your best answer would probably come in the form of interpretation of evidence -- are the conclusions that have been made (by your friend and by others) evident or at all likely, or are there other interpretations which are just as likely? I think that's a rather good approach, at least it certainly beats deriding all scientists as "arrogant" and people as deceived because they believe in evolution.

Actually, it is funny, because when I asked him for a specific one, he couldn't post any, because there isn't any. Here is what he said:


Me:So there is no record of any civilizations older than say 10,000 years ago?
Him: What are you looking for for? Stone tools, art, burial sites, what more do you want to prove that there were cultures around long before your adam and eve got booted out of the garden.

So he is saying that since there are tools, art, and other things that have been dated to be around 40,000 years old, that that proves life before Adam and Eve.

How accurate is radiometric dating and carbon dating?

Athanasius
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:51 AM
How accurate is radiometric dating and carbon dating?


Probably fairly accurate depending on who's doing the dating and what's being dated. It's worth looking into for yourself, though.

David Taylor
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:12 PM
I was posed a question by an atheist that is giving me a hard time. He says that there are civilizations that are older than how old the Bible says the world is. I have researched it a little and scientists and archeologists agree that they have found ancient civilizations that date back 100,000 years. How is this true if the earth, according to the Bible is between 10,000 and 6,000 years old?

The bible doesn't date itself.

We have no exact idea of how old the Bible's historical account is.

Tradition attempts to use the biblical geneologies to create a date of Creation circa 4004 BC; however, this is simply reading into the Bible; and not something the Bible itself dates for us.

Had the Bible said that Adam was created 4000 years before Jesus was born; then you'd have an exact, dateable reference from the bible.

But you don't, because it doesn't do that.

The geneologies aren't strict, therefore they could often skip many, many generations.

An example of this is Matthew 1:1.
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. "

Taking this verse alone, in a straight geneological understanding; would make one thing that Jesus was the son of David, and the grandson of Abraham...a lineage that would naturally span about 20 years between each of them, covering roughly 40 odd years between all three births.

Well, David lived a thousand years before Jesus, and Abraham lived roughly another thousand years before David.

That's a span of nearly 2000 years between child and grandchild; if read literally, and solely based on that one verse.

It's evident however, from other passages, that many generations are being omitted in that verse; between all three people.

The problem with many of the OT geneologies, we don't know if and when they too may have omitted insignificant people within their geneologies; and just listed the primary or notable people within the lineage like Matthew 1:1 does.

So it isn't that the Athiest has trapped you and the bible into being too young to be accountable; it's that the Bible doesn't date itself, and they are attempting to use an unbaseable myth about the age of the Bible to trip you up.

What they need, is not facts, or evidence, or proof; but a friend who can show the love of Christ to them. Facts and evidence won't change their minds; but your testimony of what Christ has done for you in your life, and how He has changed you might over time.

Fighting Instinct
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:10 PM
The bible doesn't date itself.

We have no exact idea of how old the Bible's historical account is.

Tradition attempts to use the biblical geneologies to create a date of Creation circa 4004 BC; however, this is simply reading into the Bible; and not something the Bible itself dates for us.

Had the Bible said that Adam was created 4000 years before Jesus was born; then you'd have an exact, dateable reference from the bible.

But you don't, because it doesn't do that.

The geneologies aren't strict, therefore they could often skip many, many generations.

An example of this is Matthew 1:1.
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. "

Taking this verse alone, in a straight geneological understanding; would make one thing that Jesus was the son of David, and the grandson of Abraham...a lineage that would naturally span about 20 years between each of them, covering roughly 40 odd years between all three births.

Well, David lived a thousand years before Jesus, and Abraham lived roughly another thousand years before David.

That's a span of nearly 2000 years between child and grandchild; if read literally, and solely based on that one verse.

It's evident however, from other passages, that many generations are being omitted in that verse; between all three people.

The problem with many of the OT geneologies, we don't know if and when they too may have omitted insignificant people within their geneologies; and just listed the primary or notable people within the lineage like Matthew 1:1 does.

So it isn't that the Athiest has trapped you and the bible into being too young to be accountable; it's that the Bible doesn't date itself, and they are attempting to use an unbaseable myth about the age of the Bible to trip you up.

What they need, is not facts, or evidence, or proof; but a friend who can show the love of Christ to them. Facts and evidence won't change their minds; but your testimony of what Christ has done for you in your life, and how He has changed you might over time.

There is a bunch of proof that the geneologies are complete. I once thought like you did, but I was proved wrong many times.

Romber
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:13 PM
To add to what Fighting Instinct said:

That is also the reason why there is a range of 10,000 to 6,000 year old Earth.

Fighting Instinct
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:28 PM
To add to what Fighting Instinct said:

That is also the reason why there is a range of 10,000 to 6,000 year old Earth.
Is that due to Genesis 5?

Romber
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:03 PM
Is that due to Genesis 5?


I think it is due to possible geneological gaps in chapters 5, 10 and 11, but mainly 11 or called "The Table of Nations".

Fighting Instinct
Dec 22nd 2008, 09:26 PM
I was posed a question by an atheist that is giving me a hard time. He says that there are civilizations that are older than how old the Bible says the world is. I have researched it a little and scientists and archeologists agree that they have found ancient civilizations that date back 100,000 years. How is this true if the earth, according to the Bible is between 10,000 and 6,000 years old? And I do not believe that the genealogies in Genesis are incomplete. Any help would be appreciated.

Eh, wouldn't you know it. As soon as I say that, I am reading some pretty strong evidence that I am possibly wrong.

What is a Christian to do? I feel like I am being pulled in 2 different directions on this issue. On one hand, you have evidence of man being tens of thousands of years old and on the other, man only being about 6,000 years old. Who do we believe? Gaps, or no gaps. This is the fundamental question in dealing with the age of the earth and man.:hmm:

Romber
Dec 22nd 2008, 10:26 PM
Eh, wouldn't you know it. As soon as I say that, I am reading some pretty strong evidence that I am possibly wrong.

What is a Christian to do? I feel like I am being pulled in 2 different directions on this issue. On one hand, you have evidence of man being tens of thousands of years old and on the other, man only being about 6,000 years old. Who do we believe? Gaps, or no gaps. This is the fundamental question in dealing with the age of the earth and man.:hmm:

And an age old question too. I would say take whatever science has to offer in terms of dates with caution. Investigate it carefully. There is a lot of biased involved with this sort of discussion. Also, trust scripture over science.

Fighting Instinct
Dec 22nd 2008, 10:31 PM
And an age old question too. I would say take whatever science has to offer in terms of dates with caution. Investigate it carefully. There is a lot of biased involved with this sort of discussion. Also, trust scripture over science.

I know what you are saying, but at the same time, people always say things like "Take the word of God and not the word of man", but at the same time, God did make us to aquire knowledge about many things. So why would we be right on somethings and wrong on others? I think what I believe is that there are gaps in the genealogies, plus other gaps that we don't fully know about. I believe this to bridge the gap between God made science and God's Word. Otherwise, we, as Christians, are saying that we have blind faith that the genealogies do tell us the earth is only 4000 years old. I don't believe in blind faith. God gave us brains to figure things out.

crawfish
Dec 22nd 2008, 10:48 PM
Eh, wouldn't you know it. As soon as I say that, I am reading some pretty strong evidence that I am possibly wrong.

What is a Christian to do? I feel like I am being pulled in 2 different directions on this issue. On one hand, you have evidence of man being tens of thousands of years old and on the other, man only being about 6,000 years old. Who do we believe? Gaps, or no gaps. This is the fundamental question in dealing with the age of the earth and man.:hmm:

What's a Christian to do? My suggestion is, exactly what you're doing. Read, study, ask, understand. And know that God's grace surpasses our capability to understand. :)

My conclusions are the opposite of most people here. I don't believe in a young earth, and I no longer believe that scripture implicitly supports the concept (it doesn't support an old earth, either, it is silent on the physical truths). Therefore, the age of man and civilization is irrelevant to me. Good luck in your own search, and feel free to chat with me if you want.

Old Earther
Dec 23rd 2008, 12:03 AM
Also, trust scripture over science.


All truth is one. Science is not at odds with Scripture properly interpreted.

BrckBrln
Dec 23rd 2008, 12:05 AM
All truth is one. Science is not at odds with Scripture properly interpreted.

Scripture is not at odds with Science properly interpreted.

Scripture has precedent.

Biastai
Dec 23rd 2008, 06:09 AM
I was posed a question by an atheist that is giving me a hard time. He says that there are civilizations that are older than how old the Bible says the world is. I have researched it a little and scientists and archeologists agree that they have found ancient civilizations that date back 100,000 years. How is this true if the earth, according to the Bible is between 10,000 and 6,000 years old? And I do not believe that the genealogies in Genesis are incomplete. Any help would be appreciated.

Are you referring to the bead necklaces discovered recently that were dated about 80000 years ago? I can't locate the article, but I do remember some news piece on this. Isn't it a premature leap to say it shows evidence of civilization though? Well, depends how one defines it. It only indicates simple tribal life as found in the primal horde to me.

And another thing, is it generally agreed here to take the number of years in Genesis literally? It would be pretty shaky to assume the ancients' time scale can be that easily converted to our years. For example, according to transmitted Babylonian myths, the first Babylonian king is Alorus of Chaldea who reigned 10 sari or 36,000 years.

NOTE: I'm not inferring our scriptures are of equal authority with Babylonian myths. I'm just illustrating that their methods of recording eras are not able to be straightforwardly communicated in terms of years.

Athanasius
Dec 23rd 2008, 06:23 AM
All truth is one. Science is not at odds with Scripture properly interpreted.


Scripture is not at odds with Science properly interpreted.

Scripture has precedent.

Scripture properly interpreted is not at odds with science properly practiced.

Fighting Instinct
Dec 23rd 2008, 05:03 PM
Are you referring to the bead necklaces discovered recently that were dated about 80000 years ago? I can't locate the article, but I do remember some news piece on this. Isn't it a premature leap to say it shows evidence of civilization though? Well, depends how one defines it. It only indicates simple tribal life as found in the primal horde to me.

And another thing, is it generally agreed here to take the number of years in Genesis literally? It would be pretty shaky to assume the ancients' time scale can be that easily converted to our years. For example, according to transmitted Babylonian myths, the first Babylonian king is Alorus of Chaldea who reigned 10 sari or 36,000 years.

NOTE: I'm not inferring our scriptures are of equal authority with Babylonian myths. I'm just illustrating that their methods of recording eras are not able to be straightforwardly communicated in terms of years.

No, I agree with you. I think that the way our Bibles are translated can't be taken as what is seen all the time. You have to take into account ancient times and how their culture was and how it is so much different than we do it now. Most people seem to forget this when the age of the earth or man comes up. I admit, I did it. We also have to see scripture in light of other scripture. If we look at the way some chapters or verses are written, they don't always give a clear picture until you test it in contrast with other scripture. Just a thought.

Br. Barnabas
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:26 PM
Also, trust scripture over science.

I think you are misunderstanding what the Bible and the Scriptures are. They are not a science book and do not claim to be. They are not meant for scientfic study but for religious study. They tell us how to live our life not how living organisms live. The Bible does not explain how a cell works. We were given brains and minds with which to think we should be able to use them, let the experts in each field explain things. Let the scientists explain how the world around us works. Let the Biblical Scholars tell us what the context of the Scriptures are and what they were meant to deal with. Let the Minister/Priests/Preachers tell us how the Bible says we should live. Trust each source as it should be treated and trusted.

Many people ask why the Bible does not answer the question they are asking the answer is because that is not the question it was meant to answer. So asking the Bible how old the earth is; is not a vaild question for the Bible. It was not meant to answer the question. What the first two chapters of Genesis were meant to show was that God was before everything. He does not have a creation story like all other gods in ancient cultures. He was before all and always was. It also is meant to tell how the ancient Jews believe the world got into being and show that God has control over the earth and that it must submit to him. So we are not to fear it but know that it can be controled.

parker
Dec 24th 2008, 06:13 AM
I have always made a distinction between what is true and what is factually correct. Truth is faith-based and is part of a belief system. Facts actually belong to a different realm. At least as I see it.

The Bible is not always factually correct, but it is always true.

Outside of Lincoln High School, there is a bronze statue of Abe Lincoln in suspenders and shirtsleeves, raising a broadaxe high in the air. At his feet is the figure of a prostrate slave with his chained hands outstretched on a rock. The plaque on the statue's base reads: ABRAHAM LINCOLN--Born to Free the Slaves.

The events represented by the statue are not factually correct. But they are undeniably TRUE.

Athanasius
Dec 24th 2008, 08:11 AM
I have always made a distinction between what is true and what is factually correct. Truth is faith-based and is part of a belief system. Facts actually belong to a different realm. At least as I see it.

The Bible is not always factually correct, but it is always true.

Outside of Lincoln High School, there is a bronze statue of Abe Lincoln in suspenders and shirtsleeves, raising a broadaxe high in the air. At his feet is the figure of a prostrate slave with his chained hands outstretched on a rock. The plaque on the statue's base reads: ABRAHAM LINCOLN--Born to Free the Slaves.

The events represented by the statue are not factually correct. But they are undeniably TRUE.


Truth as compared to fact; what's more, "truth" and "fact" belong to different categories according to you. This seems familiar to me. It's almost seems as if, in this distinction between "truth" and "fact", we're pitting religion against science, yet under the guise of "truth" and "fact" respectively. I doubt this was your intention (as your illustration would indicate), though this certainly seems to me to be a consequence of the Enlightenment project (in particular truth by synthesis rather than antithesis).

The issue I have in relegating truth to the "realm" of faith based belief system and creating the sort of distinction between "truth" and "fact" that you have is that as a consequence, truth loses it's authoritative power, especially in the life of the non-Christian. Jesus is described as the truth (John 14:6), but when that truth is faith based and merely part of a belief system, where does that leave those who don't believe? It's almost as if you're saying, "you have to believe it's true before you believe it's true, and only then is it true" - unadulterated nonsense. Jesus was of course making a factually correct statement (a true statement) which is not predicated upon one's faith in a particular belief system. In other words; Jesus is the truth, whether you believe Him (or He believes Himself) or not - it's a fact.

Yukerboy
Dec 24th 2008, 10:48 AM
I was posed a question by an atheist that is giving me a hard time. He says that there are civilizations that are older than how old the Bible says the world is. I have researched it a little and scientists and archeologists agree that they have found ancient civilizations that date back 100,000 years. How is this true if the earth, according to the Bible is between 10,000 and 6,000 years old? And I do not believe that the genealogies in Genesis are incomplete. Any help would be appreciated.


I have become all things to all men that I might save some.

I believe in an old earth, yet I also believe man was created 6,000 years ago.

However, in talking with this atheist, I would show him where the earth and the age of man could be 1,000s upon 1,000s of years old.

parker
Dec 24th 2008, 09:39 PM
Truth as compared to fact; what's more, "truth" and "fact" belong to different categories according to you. This seems familiar to me. It's almost seems as if, in this distinction between "truth" and "fact", we're pitting religion against science, yet under the guise of "truth" and "fact" respectively. I doubt this was your intention (as your illustration would indicate), though this certainly seems to me to be a consequence of the Enlightenment project (in particular truth by synthesis rather than antithesis).What is "the Enlightenment project"?


The issue I have in relegating truth to the "realm" of faith based belief system and creating the sort of distinction between "truth" and "fact" that you have is that as a consequence, truth loses it's authoritative power, especially in the life of the non-Christian.If I understand you on this, I disagree. Isn't the word "truth," ipso facto, always "authoritative power"? (Not authorititve in the sense that "You must believe...") but in the sense that everyone lives within the constraints of "truth" as they find it until they are moved to seek it elsewhere when it is no longer an effective boundary?



I disagre Jesus is described as the truth (John 14:6), but when that truth is faith based and merely part of a belief system, where does that leave those who don't believe?
Those who "don't believe" are, by common sense, outside that belief system.

It's almost as if you're saying, "you have to believe it's true before you believe it's true, and only then is it true" - unadulterated nonsense. I see it differently. Your understanding that "you have to believe it's true before you believe it's true and only then is it true" may be "unadulterated nonsense" but it is common unadulterated nonsense. The way the human mind works can readily be described in just this way!


Jesus was of course making a factually correct statement (a true statement) which is not predicated upon one's faith in a particular belief system. Christians believing it is true, knowing through their faith that it is true, is a different matter than seeing it from the standpoint of another belief system--or from NO belief system at all.

In other words; Jesus is the truth, whether you believe Him (or He believes Himself) or not - it's a fact.The world is not flat, but if you don't live in that same world, the fact that it is flat is of no consequence to everyday life unless you were to be one of the few who want to go exploring the ocean.

I can see I am getting caught up in semantics. What I want to leave you with is to say that I believe Christianity is an historical faith. That is, it's traditionally based on a real person, who actually lived and about whom we know certain things. It's just that in my view, I personally cannot know everything about him. Even the author of John's gospel admitted that there is much about Jesus that we will never know.

Athanasius
Dec 25th 2008, 02:50 AM
What is "the Enlightenment project"?

By Enlightenment project I mean the Enlightenment.



If I understand you on this, I disagree. Isn't the word "truth," ipso facto, always "authoritative power"? (Not authorititve in the sense that "You must believe...") but in the sense that everyone lives within the constraints of "truth" as they find it until they are moved to seek it elsewhere when it is no longer an effective boundary?

Suppose I encountered a Hindu priest while on a trip through India. While conversing with this priest I learn that he lives his life in fear of reincarnation. Reincarnation is very true for this priest and it holds an authoritative power in his life. However, you and I both know that reincarnation is in fact, a false belief.

Is this what you mean when you speak of truth being part of a faith based belief system? If this is what you mean then I would agree with you in part - there are certain beliefs people hold as true, regardless of whether or not they are true (I would call these personal truths). At the same time, though, I would only see this as one aspect to truth and would not define truth as such.



Those who "don't believe" are, by common sense, outside that belief system.

What I meant was this. Was Jesus' claim that He is the truth true to only those who believe Him, or true regardless of belief?



. I see it differently. Your understanding that "you have to believe it's true before you believe it's true and only then is it true" may be "unadulterated nonsense" but it is common unadulterated nonsense. The way the human mind works can readily be described in just this way!

Okay, but I'm speaking of truth as a thing which is transcendental. In other words; truth is truth whether or not I believe it to be true.



Christians believing it is true, knowing through their faith that it is true, is a different matter than seeing it from the standpoint of another belief system--or from NO belief system at all.

I don't think there exists such a thing as no belief system, but that's beside the point. What I said above can be applied here as well.



The world is not flat, but if you don't live in that same world, the fact that it is flat is of no consequence to everyday life unless you were to be one of the few who want to go exploring the ocean.

I can see I am getting caught up in semantics. What I want to leave you with is to say that I believe Christianity is an historical faith. That is, it's traditionally based on a real person, who actually lived and about whom we know certain things. It's just that in my view, I personally cannot know everything about him. Even the author of John's gospel admitted that there is much about Jesus that we will never know.

We're talking about truth though; even if you don't believe "it" affects you, it just might (as Jesus being the son of God would affect every person in history). I'm not saying we can know everything about everything; but to make truth relative (if I understand you correctly) because we can't know everything seems... Extreme.

parker
Dec 25th 2008, 07:16 AM
By Enlightenment project I mean the Enlightenment.



Suppose I encountered a Hindu priest while on a trip through India. While conversing with this priest I learn that he lives his life in fear of reincarnation. Reincarnation is very true for this priest and it holds an authoritative power in his life. However, you and I both know that reincarnation is in fact, a false belief.

Is this what you mean when you speak of truth being part of a faith based belief system? If this is what you mean then I would agree with you in part - there are certain beliefs people hold as true, regardless of whether or not they are true (I would call these personal truths). At the same time, though, I would only see this as one aspect to truth and would not define truth as such.



What I meant was this. Was Jesus' claim that He is the truth true to only those who believe Him, or true regardless of belief?



Okay, but I'm speaking of truth as a thing which is transcendental. In other words; truth is truth whether or not I believe it to be true.



I don't think there exists such a thing as no belief system, but that's beside the point. What I said above can be applied here as well.



We're talking about truth though; even if you don't believe "it" affects you, it just might (as Jesus being the son of God would affect every person in history). I'm not saying we can know everything about everything; but to make truth relative (if I understand you correctly) because we can't know everything seems... Extreme.Wow, X, You've really put a lot of thought into this. I don't know as I am up to matching you--intellectually, that is.

I know what you're really talking about (I think!) with the reincarnation thing. My opinion is that God somehow comes through the society you were born into, so those who were born into a Hindu culture probably won't be equipped to see Christianity like we do. The main thing is I believe the author of John's account who has Jesus say that no one comes to God except through Jesus. To me Jesus was the incarnation of God and Jesus' vision of God was related to the Kingdom of God on earth. Anyway, Jesus was perfect love and impartiality (at least according to the gospels as I read them). So no one comes to the Father except through Jesus.

I am kind of tired here. The kids just went to bed. Write back again if you want tomorrow or so.

Jesus was a man: statement of FACT. Jesus was the Messiah: statement of FAITH. And I see Christian faith as seeing the man Jesus as the incarnation of God. God not as human, petty, angry revengeful but God as Jesus said: looking with favor on both the good and evil and close to our own earthly father---except Jesus called him "Abba" which was the Hebrew or Aramaic word for "Father as a nurturing parent." Remember, most of the family at that time was strict patriarchial "Father knows best" type of family dynamics. Jesus made savage attacks against those family values of his day and he did it very, very often. (Call no one on earth your father, our families are not are kin, but our earthly brothers and sisters, I come to set son in law against father, leave the dead to bury the dead, etc.).

I have run out of steam. Have a meaningful Christmas!

Athanasius
Dec 25th 2008, 08:26 AM
Wow, X, You've really put a lot of thought into this. I don't know as I am up to matching you--intellectually, that is.

Well, being honest... I think a lot of what I say is utter nonsense, but it's nonsense that's going to have as much thought put behind it as I can muster (hopefully). For the express purpose of learning, actually. A perhaps annoying symptom of my becoming more and more dissatisfied with this mechanical system they call "higher" education, at least as I've experienced it.



I know what you're really talking about (I think!) with the reincarnation thing. My opinion is that God somehow comes through the society you were born into, so those who were born into a Hindu culture probably won't be equipped to see Christianity like we do. The main thing is I believe the author of John's account who has Jesus say that no one comes to God except through Jesus. To me Jesus was the incarnation of God and Jesus' vision of God was related to the Kingdom of God on earth. Anyway, Jesus was perfect love and impartiality (at least according to the gospels as I read them). So no one comes to the Father except through Jesus.

I'm in complete agreement with you in that Christianity is interpreted through a cultural lens, especially when we're dealing with such different systems as Eastern vs. Western thought. Which actually I think is a good thing seeing all of these different focuses on the same Christian teaching (within reason).



Jesus was a man: statement of FACT. Jesus was the Messiah: statement of FAITH. And I see Christian faith as seeing the man Jesus as the incarnation of God. God not as human, petty, angry revengeful but God as Jesus said: looking with favor on both the good and evil and close to our own earthly father---except Jesus called him "Abba" which was the Hebrew or Aramaic word for "Father as a nurturing parent." Remember, most of the family at that time was strict patriarchial "Father knows best" type of family dynamics. Jesus made savage attacks against those family values of his day and he did it very, very often. (Call no one on earth your father, our families are not are kin, but our earthly brothers and sisters, I come to set son in law against father, leave the dead to bury the dead, etc.).

I have run out of steam. Have a meaningful Christmas!

Have yourself a meaningful Christmas as well! My family celebrates on Christmas Eve and so I can already tell you it went very well; actually just finished ordering some books - hopefully I won't ignore my girlfriend too much!

On that note, however, I think I'm going to sign off and get some sleep as well. Maybe think of something to say while unconscious:hmm:

Brother Mark
Dec 25th 2008, 03:03 PM
Well, being honest... I think a lot of what I say is utter nonsense, but it's nonsense that's going to have as much thought put behind it as I can muster (hopefully). For the express purpose of learning, actually. A perhaps annoying symptom of my becoming more and more dissatisfied with this mechanical system they call "higher" education, at least as I've experienced it.

Many folks who truly go after God and all He is, grow tired of the mechanical system. It's really not the way the Lord teaches. It has it's uses. Mechanical is an excellent way to describe it.

Athanasius
Dec 25th 2008, 04:27 PM
Many folks who truly go after God and all He is, grow tired of the mechanical system. It's really not the way the Lord teaches. It has it's uses. Mechanical is an excellent way to describe it.

I don't really know what to say in regards to higher education aside from describe it as mechanical. It's just so uninvolved.

Old Earther
Dec 27th 2008, 05:45 PM
Scripture is not at odds with Science properly interpreted.


Scripture, properly interpreted is not at odds with science properly interpreted.

If science reveals that the Earth revolves around the Sun, then we had do well to abandon a literal interpretation ofthe Bible when it makes reference to a stationary, central Earth.


Scripture has precedent.

What do you mean?

Athanasius
Dec 27th 2008, 06:07 PM
Scripture properly interpreted is not at odds with science properly practiced.


Scripture, properly interpreted is not at odds with science properly interpreted.

Huh, that's funny :P

Itinerant Lurker
Dec 27th 2008, 08:17 PM
First of all you need to realize that the atheist is under the influence of an Evolutionary Worldview hence the extraordinarily large ages. This will make any evidence he sees as "How can I make this fit the (fallacious)Evolutionary model?"

Second of all the dating methods your "friend" is trusting is not so...trustworthy. In order to even achieve such a date, many assumptions are needed to be made to even get off the ground to achieve the actual dating process. On top of this most dates are thrown out unless if they conform to "desired" results.

I would not take any dates any your "friends" tell you until science can produce a solid method of finding dates-not one that is not on such shaky, controversial ground.

Another note, most scientists will agree with anything in the evolutionary worldview. You won't find many creationist scientists disagreeing as they value their jobs.

No, all scientists who ascribe to an old earth view are not involved in a mass evolutionary conspiracy. Science doesn't ask you to believe in something the way faith will - belief is not necessary for gravity to work, when you step off a chair it does not matter what you believe will happen, you will fall. There are a wide variety of dating methods that are employed to date various materials. They are constantly being improved and yield reliable results when properly used.

Science rewards those who can overturn previously held theories with EVIDENCE!!! That is why young earthers can't get their work published - their evidence will not stand up to scrutiny, which is what science is all about.

Itinerant Lurker
Dec 27th 2008, 08:21 PM
So mankind has been around 100,000 years and only now we have the internet. The arrogance of the secular scientist is astounding. Talk about picking and choosing. Everything magically popped out of nothing and is billions of years old, but mankind chose to evolve 100,000 years ago.

Arrogance? The rise of civilization coincides with a convergence of a number of favorable factors such as the end of the last ice age and the rise of agriculture. Without agriculture you cannot get the food surpluses needed to support civilization. And agriculture takes a long time to develop when you don't have a wide variety of domesticatable crops and/or animals hanging around. If that seems arrogant you'll just have to deal with it, the universe doesn't seem to particularly care about our ideals of arrogance and that's probably not going to change any time soon.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77