Perhaps the most fundamental(!) error in creationism...?

[CFLarsen]

Why do Creationists claim that the Earth is 6000 years old? Because of Archbishop James Ussher, who, by using fuzzy math, calculated the first day of creation to be Sunday 23 October 4004 BC (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/ussher/ussher.html)

But let's look at the Bible itself:

Genesis 1
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.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 2
2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Since the Bible is inerrant, Ussher is wrong: God must have started creating on Monday 24 October, 4004 BC.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why do Creationists claim that the Earth is 6000 years old? Because of Archbishop James Ussher, who, by using fuzzy math, calculated the first day of creation to be Sunday 23 October 4004 BC (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/ussher/ussher.html)

But let's look at the Bible itself:



Since the Bible is inerrant, Ussher is wrong: God must have started creating on Monday 24 October, 4004 BC.

And on the eighth day, He created the jack o'lantern for the rockin' Halloween party he was throwing that night. And it was good.

[rachaella]

Maybe I'm just being dense, but wasn't Saturday the Sabbath or 7th day in the OT? So therefore wouldn't the first day be Sunday?

[wollery]

It still is in Judaism.

[CFLarsen]

Doesn't matter. We are talking about the Christian.....interpretation....here.

Either you are dogmatic...or you are not! :)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Doesn't matter. We are talking about the Christian.....interpretation....here.

Either you are dogmatic...or you are not! :)

But moving the Sabbath to Sunday was never a matter of doctrine - only a convenience. Most, if not all, educated Christians would be aware of the fact that a change had occured - even today many calendars follows the convention of listing Sunday as the first day of the week - so it seems a bit daft to jump all over Ussher for having taken it into consideration. The whole idea that the earth is ~6000 years is daft enough on the surface that there's no point in making mountains out of molehills in the details.

[Doctor X]

Would think the fact the world was created at least twice would prove a more fundamental error than when it happened.

--J.D.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


But moving the Sabbath to Sunday was never a matter of doctrine - only a convenience. Most, if not all, educated Christians would be aware of the fact that a change had occured - even today many calendars follows the convention of listing Sunday as the first day of the week - so it seems a bit daft to jump all over Ussher for having taken it into consideration. The whole idea that the earth is ~6000 years is daft enough on the surface that there's no point in making mountains out of molehills in the details.

Exactly, the absurdity that someone pinpointed a first day (giving a specific month and day!) 6,000 years ago is far more amazing than the fact that the first day is listed as sunday. Who cares?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Would think the fact the world was created at least twice would prove a more fundamental error than when it happened.

--J.D.

I've had that explained away as the second time "detailing" the creation.

[Radrook]

Ever here of qualification?
That's when you use "some" or "most" "the majority" or "the minority"


It prevents the possible inclusion of persons who belong to the targeted group but who don't hold the view you say they do. This in turn increases your credibility since you show that you prefer to be accurate and as an extension honest.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Would think the fact the world was created at least twice would prove a more fundamental error than when it happened.--J.D. Please elaborate...

[WildCat]

Originally posted by rebecca


And on the eighth day, He created the jack o'lantern for the rockin' Halloween party he was throwing that night. And it was good.
No, that was later. On the 8th day God created whiskey, to keep the Irish from taking over the world.

[Zep]

Previously unexpurgated version of the OT, not in use much these days

And on the second day, God created light, and seperated the light from the dark. And he saw that it was good. And it lit up everything that was there. And it went on and on and on. In fact, you could see for fu**ing miles.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
But moving the Sabbath to Sunday was never a matter of doctrine - only a convenience. Most, if not all, educated Christians would be aware of the fact that a change had occured - even today many calendars follows the convention of listing Sunday as the first day of the week - so it seems a bit daft to jump all over Ussher for having taken it into consideration. The whole idea that the earth is ~6000 years is daft enough on the surface that there's no point in making mountains out of molehills in the details.

Sure, it's "daft", but it still an important point: The pivotal point of the Bible is that it is the word of God Himself, and therefore inerrant. No mistakes. None, baby.

But it doesn't say anything about how old the world is. Sure, there's this long, tedious list of people "begatting" endlessly, but rather worthless, since we don't know how long people lived. Ussher's calculation is crucial to the Creationists' claim about the age of the Earth - and it is supposedly accurate, too.

We have a contradiction, and every little contradiction helps.

Moving the Sabbath is not the issue: The creation took 6 days, no more, no less. God made the 7th day one for resting, which means he started Monday. Ussher says he started Sunday.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The whole idea that the earth is ~6000 years is daft enough on the surface that there's no point in making mountains out of molehills in the details. [/B]

What's even daftier is your inability to acknowledge that not all Christians hold the view you accuse them of holding.


Weiiiiiird!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
Please elaborate...

He's talking about his misunderstanding of Genesis where a detailed account is followed by a more generalized statement from which he enthusiastically derives the inane notion that the author was dumb enough to say that the earth was created twice.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LostAngeles


I've had that explained away as the second time "detailing" the creation.

All explanations given to clarify a reader's misunderstandings are viewed as efforts to explain away. Which only shows that the person categorizing the explanation as an explaining away simply refuses to acknowledge the different explanation and prefers the ridiculous version instead because the moronic, imbecilic, obviously concocted ridiculous version affords the person prefering it much more--how do we say?

Ah yes!

Much more fun.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by rebecca


And on the eighth day, He created the jack o'lantern for the rockin' Halloween party he was throwing that night. And it was good.

Wrong!
That's the part of the day he was creating the part of the brain prone to come up with chortlings followed by snortlings.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Doesn't matter. We are talking about the Christian.....interpretation....here.

Either you are dogmatic...or you are not! :)

By not qualifying you are going beyond dogmatism and firmly planting yourself in the area completely out of touch with reality. Congratulations for providing a very good example of unreasoning, fanatical, anti-biblical irrationality.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Radrook
By not qualifying you are going beyond dogmatism and firmly planting yourself in the area completely out of touch with reality. Congratulations for providing a very good example of unreasoning, fanatical, anti-biblical irrationality.

I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean, "not qualifying"?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean, "not qualifying"?

You lump all Christians into the creationists group that believes in 24-hour creation days when there is a substantial number that does not hold that view. These other Christians know that the original Hebrew word for day is not restricted to a 24-hour interpretation. Furthermore, the period immediately preceding the first creative day can accommodate the billions of years which science tells us encompass the forming of the universe. That period is described but is NOT called a day in the Bible.


The use of the modifiers "most" or "the majority" would make the statement perhaps a fair one.

But to use or imply the all-inclusive "all" is a gross misrepresentation.

[Doctor X]

Gulliamo:

Yes . . . do not trust chairman of Hebrew Bible departments and hundreds of years of scholarship!

Trust Radrook who ignores any argument he cannot think of a fallacy for.

Anyways, here is the breakdown:

Priestly Account: Gen 1:1-2:3

J Account: Gen 2.4b-on to Gen 5.

J includes the creation-Garden story-Cain/Abel

You will note that both have different names for the deity. P uses elohim--literally "gods" and variations thereof. It is understood as representing a singularity based on grammer . . . though not always. Most likely the P writer considered a singular over lesser gods--henotheism.

J uses YHWH exclusively. Characters may refer to YHWH as "El" or other names, but the writer never does. A redactor adds "god" to YHWH to try to link the names.

There are other "minor" creations which reflect the idea of a god that defeats a water monster.

--J.D.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Radrook
You lump all Christians into the creationists group

I do? Where? I think I have been talking about Creationists. I have mentioned "Christian" once, which perhaps should have been "Creationist" - fine with me.

Is that all you hang your hat on?

[Radrook]

It is sometimes rather comical how the desperation to prove the Bible silly, or wrong, or drivel, drives (alliteration not intended) those helleciously on that task to latch on to the most insignificant details in order to try to extract wild sweeping unjustifiable conclusions.

For example, I have come across a criticisms of a certain letter attributed to the Apostle Paul as not really having been written by Paul. The usual reason given?

Ummmmm--wellll the style is different.

Really?

Wow!


Devastating!

LOLWROF

The serious problem with that particular approach is that Paul is known to have used secretaries to write his letters and so a mere change of secretaries would easily account for the change in style. Additionally, as a writer myself I know that changes in style are necessary in order to deal with the different subject matter. In fact, I avoid authors who seem unable to change styles because I find them monotonous. I prefer authors who are versatile enough to be able to adapt their approach to the material at hand.

Anyway, such shallow accusations are the basis upon which most ridicule and suspicions about biblical-book authorship is based. Which makes reading such accusations tedious and a complete waste of time once the initial hilarity of it wears off.

[CFLarsen]

Radrook,

Do you think you could address my post?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Radrook,

Do you think you could address my post?

If I were omnipresent I could have answered it long ago since then I would have seen it. Since I am not, and just became aware of it--that explains the interval. : )

Creationists and Christians are not obligatorily mutually inclusive terms--I grant you that. Nevertheless, the term creationist is usually understood as referring to Christians as is the particular explanation that you are focusing on with its twenty-four-hour interpretation.

In any case, not all creationists hold to the twenty-four-hour understanding of those creative days. Neither do all disagree with the billions of years possibility in reference to the formation of the earth itself along with the rest of the universe. Since that is so, arbitrarily lumping all creationists under 24-hour-creative days-category constitutes a misrepresentation.

BTW
Your reference to an Archbishop reinforces the impression that you are referring to Christians though you say you are not.

[Doctor X]

Interesting . . . the subject is Genesis and he brings up a pseudopauline letter.

Nevertheless, since I detest inaccuracy, he was given references to the pseudopauline letter and invited to compile his rebuttal and submit it to the peer reviewed literature.

But answer there came none. . . .

I can only conclude that he has changed the subject because he has had to accept the multi-authorship of Genesis.

Progress methinks. . . .

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Arguments against Genesis are the same as arguments against the rest of the Bible, based on insufficient evidence, wishful thinking, misinterpretations, slanting, takings out of context, mistranslations, insufficient study, unfamiliarity with the Bible as a book, a fragmentary approach to the scriptures, and very often sheer bias motivated by ulterior motives.

Example:

Accusation:
Samson is accused of murdering 3000 innocent people.

Fact:
Samson killed 3000 Philistine warriors out to arrest him and have him executed.

Murder is not applicable to this type of military encounter.

The accuser, a person who has dedicated his whole website for the purpose of Bible criticism, obviously did not take time to read the context.
He henpecked until he focused on Samson killing 3000 people and stopped there elated over his good fortune in finding what he perceived as murder. Never mind that the term is inapplicable, Never mind that decency requires that when one evaluates literature one read literature sufficiently to at least be superficially familiar with what one is talking about.

Obviously, in this fellow's view, the Bible deserved no such consideration because to him it is a hodge podge of ideas thrown together by liars claiming to speak in God's name and out to hoodwink the reader. So if he were acting in this unusual way in reaction to their drivel,-well--they deserved it anyway so there!

Ironically, and perhaps very appropriately, in the process of his blind gloating rush he managed to write a very good authentic absurdity .



BTW
I personally find such attempts amusing on one level and sad on another level. But repeated encounters with that dubious type of modus operandi has thoroughly convinced me that such persons are best left to their own devices simply because at their stage spiritual development they are beyond the reach of logical reasoning.

Perhaps when zeal is spent and they are less agitated and more rational they will become amenable to a calm discussion wherein logic can come to bear and reasonable conclusions free of bias can be reached.

But generally speaking, most persons I have encountered who are totally dedicated to pointing out what they feel are biblical faults are simply not at that stage yet.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Radrook


He's talking about his misunderstanding of Genesis where a detailed account is followed by a more generalized statement from which he enthusiastically derives the inane notion that the author was dumb enough to say that the earth was created twice.

Except the "generalized notion" disagrees with the "detailed account" on a few points, most noticably, the order of creation. Personally, I don't read it to be created twice, but I do read it to be contradictory, at least in some ways.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by DaveW


Except the "generalized notion" disagrees with the "detailed account" on a few points, most noticeably, the order of creation. Personally, I don't read it to be created twice, but I do read it to be contradictory, at least in some ways.

Your conclusion necessitates that the supposed second writer go purposefully out of his way to stupidly contradict what was clearly written before.

Does that make any sense?

If I am out to convince someone that my writing is authentic--I would make sure that what I write fits in nicely with the context.

Right?

So how is it that this supposed second person is doing just the opposite according to how some view his writing? Or how is it that those who were in charge of either excluding it or including it and who were supposedly out to deceive included it anyway?

If they were out to deceive they would have said--"Hey! Let's leave this part out. It doesn't jive with what was said before!"

The very fact that no such action was taken and that it was included speaks volumes in reference to the motives of both the writer and the persons involved in inclusion or exclusion. Obviously those including it saw it as genuinely inspired and a harmonious addition to what had been already written.

If not then they were either idiots or else insane.

BTW
Care to tell me what contradictions you see?
Where does it say that a recapitulation or an expansion as to what had already occurred precludes adding certain data that had been left out in the previous synopsis?

Or that it must be in the exact order as the previous synopsis. The reader is expected to be discriminating and accept the first as a concise precise detailed account and the second as a generalization to enhance it.

If the reader cannot be relied upon to use his intelligence to discern this then writing such an additional explanatory brief account could confuse. But since the Bible writer counted on reader common sense he added that particular addition.

It is the repeated lack of common sense applied to the Bible and put forth as evidence of its contradictions that males discussions in reference to the Bible with such persons useless.

[Radrook]

Here is another humdinger found on that fellow's website:


Jesus warns disciples he is to leave them - John 16:5,7,28

Jesus assures disciples he will always be with them - Matt 28:20
__________________________________________________ __

He has just managed to rooster-strut his way into another ridiculous conclusion.


Of course Jesus left physically to present his sacrifice in heaven.
But his being with us was via giving us his support.


As the Apostle Paul pointed out:

1 Corinthians 5:4
When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present


Hebrews 13:6
So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?"


BTW
Apply this fellow's logic to the battlefield and he would accuse the artillery of not supporting him because it was not next to him.
Of course he would never say such a thing for fear of being unceremoniously carted away by two or more attendants in white.
But of course when it comes to the Bible--why--heh! Heh! that be different.

Now what really irks me about this whole nauseating scenario is that such persons actually DEMAND that one be reasonable. But not to fear. Thee is a catch!

That is, reasonable in accordance with their concept of the word. Which means of course, that one play according to their rules.

Which unfortunately requires that one engage in time-wasting back-and-forth exchanges in which such inanities as the ones previously described above are the norm.

[Doctor X]

Engages SuperPooperScooper2000 [Tm.--Ed.]

Arguments against Genesis are the same as arguments against the rest of the Bible, based on insufficient . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah.

Poisoning the Well and ignorance.

Shall I repost the list of scholars who disagree?

Accusation:
Samson is accused of murdering 3000 innocent people.

Fact:
Samson killed 3000 Philistine warriors out to arrest him and have him executed.

Fiction: the story is fable . . . or legend . . . however you wish to define such.

Argumenta ad hominem towards a web-site which is irrelevant to the Creation Myths.

For some reason the evidence for multiauthorship of the Pentateuch and Genesis specifically goes . . . unchallenged.

--J.D.

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Sure, it's "daft", but it still an important point: The pivotal point of the Bible is that it is the word of God Himself, and therefore inerrant. No mistakes. None, baby.

Umm... I seem to have been fallen off track about the Bible. When exactly was Ussher's calculation incorporated into it?

Ussher's calculation is crucial to the Creationists' claim about the age of the Earth - and it is supposedly accurate, too.

I don't know any creationist that includes Ussher into Holy Scripture. And not every creationist takes it as The One and the Only Truth, not even every young earth creationist. A week or two ago I saw somewhere 5000 BC given as the time of creation, but I can't remember anymore where that was (I came upon it while searching for virgin birth myths and didn't pay much attention).

We have a contradiction, and every little contradiction helps.

No. Absolutely not. Silly arguments do only damage, not anything useful. Now you have provided an argument that a fundamentalist creationist can seize and say: "Look how stupid the atheists are, they think that we don't know that the week starts at Sunday. There's no point addressing their pointless arguments", and then ignore all the good arguments.

Please, do a favor for all atheists and don't present silly arguments.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Engages SuperPooperScooper2000 [Tm.--Ed.]



Poisoning the Well and ignorance.


The well is already poisoned and it was not poisoned by me. It is poisoned by the regular irrational arguments that are repeatedly put forth as cogent. It is poisoned by the veritable armies of those who feel qualified to evaluate a book they never have taken the time to read. Or by those which feel that any ignoramus can jump on the let- us- have- fun -criticizing- the- Bible bandwagon because no real expertise is needed in reference to such a ridiculous book. So if the well is poisoned I suggest you look to your own minions as the cause.


Fiction: the story is fable . . . or legend . . . however you wish to define such.

If it is merely fable why are you so dedicated to destroy it?
Just curious.


Argumenta ad hominem towards a web-site which is irrelevant to the Creation Myths.

Any inanity that can be traced to your kind is relevant to the general approach that you people adopt in your unceasing attack on scripture.


For some reason the evidence for multiauthorship of the Pentateuch and Genesis specifically goes . . . unchallenged.

The reasons should be more than clear by now.
If they are not, it isn't because I have been vague.


Shall I repost the list of scholars who disagree?

Suite yourself.
Following the herd means nothing neither does the popularity of any given idea.

Hitler could have produced a long list of dupes with credentials to back up his policies.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Radrook
Creationists and Christians are not obligatorily mutually inclusive terms--I grant you that. Nevertheless, the term creationist is usually understood as referring to Christians as is the particular explanation that you are focusing on with its twenty-four-hour interpretation.

No, Creationists are those who believe that God created the world in 6 days, and that the world is 6-10,000 years old. Sure, there are those who also believe that the world is billions of years old, but that is another issue.

Originally posted by Radrook
In any case, not all creationists hold to the twenty-four-hour understanding of those creative days. Neither do all disagree with the billions of years possibility in reference to the formation of the earth itself along with the rest of the universe. Since that is so, arbitrarily lumping all creationists under 24-hour-creative days-category constitutes a misrepresentation.

Nice to see that you have gone from saying I lump Christians together to lumping Creationists together. ;)

Originally posted by Radrook
BTW
Your reference to an Archbishop reinforces the impression that you are referring to Christians though you say you are not.

That may be so. I have explained that this is not what I meant.


Originally posted by LW
Umm... I seem to have been fallen off track about the Bible. When exactly was Ussher's calculation incorporated into it?

I am not saying that. I am saying that the 6,000 years come from Ussher.

Originally posted by LW
I don't know any creationist that includes Ussher into Holy Scripture. And not every creationist takes it as The One and the Only Truth, not even every young earth creationist. A week or two ago I saw somewhere 5000 BC given as the time of creation, but I can't remember anymore where that was (I came upon it while searching for virgin birth myths and didn't pay much attention).

I am aware that there are different views on when creation took place, but this is just one more nail in the coffin for creationists.

Originally posted by LW
No. Absolutely not. Silly arguments do only damage, not anything useful. Now you have provided an argument that a fundamentalist creationist can seize and say: "Look how stupid the atheists are, they think that we don't know that the week starts at Sunday. There's no point addressing their pointless arguments", and then ignore all the good arguments.

Please, do a favor for all atheists and don't present silly arguments.

I don't agree. It's not silly at all. The point is not to point out whether creationists know when the week starts, but that Ussher is in conflict with the holy scripture. The key issue is inerrancy - the more we can point to errors, the less strong creationists stand.

Don't forget that creationists want equal time because they argue that their story is just as supported as the evolutionary counterpoint. The more flaws in a "theory" (to call it something it is not, I know), the weaker it is.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]their story is just as supported as the evolutionary counterpoint

Not at all.
I consider the evolutionist abiogenesis story to have less observational support than the life comes from life creationist one. So in my view, aspiring to have the same support as the baseless evolutionist abiogenesis idea would be a fatal step backwards.


IMHO

BTW
I don't think that evolution needs one more nail in the coffin.
Evolution has been in an inescapable, and hermetically sealed, entombed untenable state from its outset.

[Doctor X]

Thought I was being ignored.

The well is already poisoned and it was not poisoned by me.

Ipse dixit and incorrect since:

It is poisoned by the regular irrational arguments that are repeatedly put forth as cogent. It is poisoned by the veritable armies of those who feel qualified to evaluate a book they never have taken the time to read.

Apparently the scores of tenured and chaired biblical scholars I have reference never read the texts.

Curious. . . .

Rather a good example of Poisoning the Well that.

This is the best rebuttal he can offer? No evidence of familiarity with the texts, languages, or scholarship? Mere fallacy? Sentence fragments. In the rain?

So if the well is poisoned I suggest you look to your own minions as the cause.

If only I controlled the faculty of Harvard, the U of Chicago, Oxford, Princeton, Cambridge, Claremont, UC San Diego. . . .

If it is merely fable why are you so dedicated to destroy it?
Just curious.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam for I never attempted to destroy it.

Any inanity that can be traced to your kind is relevant to the general approach that you people adopt in your unceasing attack on scripture.

Argumentum ad hominem et Poisoning the Well. Note the failure to address the evidence.

For some reason the evidence for multiauthorship of the Pentateuch and Genesis specifically goes . . . unchallenged.

The reasons should be more than clear by now.
If they are not, it isn't because I have been vague.

Indeed. He cannot challenge them.

The list of scholars--a brief summary--I gave earlier eagerly await his peer-reviewed rebuttal.

Waiting. . . .

Waiting. . . .

Unfortunamente, fallacy will not an argument make.

Hitler could have produced a long list of dupes with credentials to back up his policies.

If the individual compares himself to Hitler and his Merry Band, he has my sympathies.

--J.D.

[Ossai]

Radrook
I consider the evolutionist abiogenesis story to have less observational support than the life comes from life creationist one. So in my view, aspiring to have the same support as the baseless evolutionist abiogenesis idea would be a fatal step backwards. Really? It seems that you have been presented evidence a number of times on other threads as well as ask some basic question, which you have never answered. You have fled the discussion, not once but multiple times.

It is poisoned by the veritable armies of those who feel qualified to evaluate a book they never have taken the time to read. Surely you’re not refuring to the list of biblical scholars Doctor X listed are you? If so then I suggest you present your finding to the peer review literature recommended.

Ossai

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Radrook

What's even daftier is your inability to acknowledge that not all Christians hold the view you accuse them of holding.

Weiiiiiird!

Re-read my posts. I was only arguing over Ussher's calculation of the age of the Earth - nowhere did I say that all Christians, or Christians in general, agreed with this notion. I haven't said anything at all about Christians in general in this thread - the closest I've come is in saying that most well-eductade Christians would know that the Sabbath was originally on Saturday.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


I haven't said anything at all about Christians in general in this thread - the closest I've come is in saying that most well-eductade Christians would know that the Sabbath was originally on Saturday.


You have my apologies.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Sure, it's "daft", but it still an important point: The pivotal point of the Bible is that it is the word of God Himself, and therefore inerrant. No mistakes. None, baby.

[SNIP]

Moving the Sabbath is not the issue: The creation took 6 days, no more, no less. God made the 7th day one for resting, which means he started Monday. Ussher says he started Sunday.

However, there's no contradiction or error on this particular point in the Bible: Creation started on Sunday, it was finished on Friday, and God rested on Saturday.

The only confusion is that Christians usually celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday and start counting the week from Monday - but that's only because of a historical act of convenience, and has no grounding in the bible, nor does it carry any doctrinal weight (at least not in any Christian denomination I'm familiar with.) Ussher, like any other educated clergy-man, was just aware that the "Sabbath" in the bible meant "Saturday" and not "Sunday" and took that into account.

This particular point isn't an error or a contradiction, it only seems so at first glance.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why do Creationists claim that the Earth is 6000 years old? Because of Archbishop James Ussher, who, by using fuzzy math, calculated the first day of creation to be Sunday 23 October 4004 BC (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/ussher/ussher.html)

But let's look at the Bible itself:
Genesis 1
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.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[...]

[My underlining]
Hold on... I might be stating the bleedin' obvious here, or raising something that someone else has already pointed out, or even missing the bleedin' obvious, but...

Genesis says that God created the earth before He created days, so how can anyone figure out the date that God started creation on, when it started before days had even been invented?

Edited to note my underlining

[Doctor X]

. . . and that is only if you consider the P creation myth. . . .

--J.D.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Genesis says that God created the earth before He created days, so how can anyone figure out the date that God started creation on, when it started before days had even been invented?

Good point.

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am not saying that. I am saying that the 6,000 years come from Ussher.

No. The 6000 years come from patching together the years mentioned in the Pentateuch and probably Judges, Samuels, Kings, and Chronicles. Ussher is just nowadays the most well-known guy among those who put the figures together.

No creationist that I know about claims that Usshers calculation is the Holy Truth. Not a single one.

I quote here one Finnish creationist's answer when asked about Ussher a year ago on usenet (my translation):

I don't know if Ussher's date is correct or not, but putting together the figures gives roughly that age.

If you look at the Bible chronologies yourself, you may notice that it is actually impossible to establish the date even to the accuracy of a single year based on them since it rounds the dates down to full years. I don't know how Ussher argued for the exact date but it is completely sure that he didn't get it from the Bible.

As modern fundamentalists are prone to ignore anything that isn't in the Bible (and large parts therein), errors in Ussher are not exactly significant for them.


I am aware that there are different views on when creation took place, but this is just one more nail in the coffin for creationists.

No. It is a strawman. You attribute a position to creationists that they don't actually hold, and then go on knocking it down. And you even fail to do that.

I don't agree. It's not silly at all. The point is not to point out whether creationists know when the week starts, but that Ussher is in conflict with the holy scripture.

And it is not a problem for creationists since they don't claim that Ussher is inerrant. If Ussher and the Bible are in conflict, then Ussher has to go.

Again, please, let us discuss creationism so that only one side uses silly arguments.

[LW]

In case someone is interested, I went through the relevant parts of the Old Testament to establish time bounds for the creation of the world according to the Bible.

I calculated the date using the following sources:


- Genesis "begat lists" up until birth of Jacob
- Genesis 47:28 tells that Jacob was 130 when he moved to Egypt
- Exodus 13:40 tells that Israelites were 430 years in Egypt
- 1 Kings 6:1 tells that Solomon started building temple 480 years after Israelites left Egypt.
- The rest of years computed from 1 Kings and 2 Kings reign lists up until Jehu.

I stopped at Jehu since he is the first king whose existence has extra-biblical evidence. (Black tablet of Salamanasser III (ruled 858-824 BC).

Putting together all years mentioned in the Bible gives 3290 years from the creation to the ascension of Jehu and 3318 years upto his death. These figures give the latest possible date of creation in 4114 BC (Jehu paying tribute on his first year and Salamanasser's last year). However, this date can be pushed forwards still ten years by assuming that the king reigns count those years when the king changed two times (once for the dead king and once for the new king), giving the absolute latest date of 4104 BC.

On the other side, supposing that the tablet is from Jehu's final year and Salamanasser's first year, we get the date of 4176 BC. The list of years has 36 entries, so if we suppose that every single entry is rounded down by 11 months, we get 33 extra years that push the creation back to 4209 BC.

So, in the end we can conclude that if the identification of King Jehu with the figure in the Black Tablet is correct, then according to the Bible the world was created sometime between 4209 - 4104 BC.

[Doctor X]

Yeah . . . but what date?

--J.D.

[gnome]

Originally posted by LW
And it is not a problem for creationists since they don't claim that Ussher is inerrant. If Ussher and the Bible are in conflict, then Ussher has to go.

Again, please, let us discuss creationism so that only one side uses silly arguments.

I have personally met people that claimed that Ussher is inerrant. Of course, you only have my word on that.

In addition I would like to point out, that as soon as one joins the creationists that say that the "days" mentioned in the creation actually represent appropriate millions/billions of years symbolically, that one is moving away from that group of creationists that believe the bible is literally true word for word.

[Navigator]

Fiction: the story is fable . . . or legend . . . however you wish to define such.


There is a deeper reaons to myth which transcends the boundaries of mere criticism.
(like the myth of the well and the myth of the poison)

Parables.

I live for your discovery of me. It is the highest expression of my love for you, and while you search for my shadows in the stories of your world, I, the indelible, invisible light, grow increasingly visible.
First Source - My Central Message

[Zep]

Originally posted by LW
I don't know how Ussher argued for the exact date but it is completely sure that he didn't get it from the Bible.Don't be so sure. That's actually what he did, just like your calculation above.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by gnome


I have personally met people that claimed that Ussher is inerrant. Of course, you only have my word on that.

In addition I would like to point out, that as soon as one joins the creationists that say that the "days" mentioned in the creation actually represent appropriate millions/billions of years symbolically, that one is moving away from that group of creationists that believe the bible is literally true word for word.

In all my many years as a spiritual disciplinarian I have never even once encountered a creationist who claimed that the creative days were billions or millions of years each neither literally nor symbolically. Why do you people find it necessary to continually misrepresent this way?

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Radrook


In all my many years as a spiritual disciplinarian I have never even once encountered a creationist who claimed that the creative days were billions or millions of years each neither literally nor symbolically. Why do you people find it necessary to continually misrepresent this way?

If they have met people who believe that, and are referring to those people, how are they 'misrepresenting' anyone?

[Doctor X]

Indeed, one simply needs to get out more.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm


If they have met people who believe that, and are referring to those people, how are they 'misrepresenting' anyone?

Because I would have come across that view by now.
If I haven't it means that it is so rare that it isn't representive of creationist views.

In short, it is the taking of the unusual and trying to pass it off as if it were common belief in order to ridicule.

[LW]

Originally posted by Zep
Don't be so sure. That's actually what he did, just like your calculation above.

You have read The Annals of the World, I suppose? And the text confirms what you say?

I had little success in trying to find it online in a format that I could read. (I did find some Windows etext exe that I can't use).

However, a part of the text was quoted at http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/ussher.html and it seems to indicate that Ussher used extra-biblical sources (namely, ancient calendar information) for establishing the exact date.

[LW]

Originally posted by gnome


I have personally met people that claimed that Ussher is inerrant. Of course, you only have my word on that.

Oh, I believe you all right. I should have guessed that on this wide world there are fundamentalists who extend the inerrancy also to extra-bibllical texts that say what they want to hear.

But I still stand on position that there are Biblical literalist creationists who don't think Ussher is inerrant and arguing about errors in Ussher with them is counterproductive.

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Radrook


Because I would have come across that view by now.
If I haven't it means that it is so rare that it isn't representive of creationist views.

In short, it is the taking of the unusual and trying to pass it off as if it were common belief in order to ridicule.

So saying that those rare people are moving away from that group of creationists that believe the bible is literally true word for word is ridicule?

And of all creationists, no less?

I think you are too quick to see malice where there is none.

Not to say people don't ridicule creationists, but they weren't in that case.

[Doctor X]

Because I would have come across that view by now.
If I haven't it means that it is so rare that it isn't representive of creationist views.

From one who cannot locate University departments of religion and Old and New Testament scholarship . . . or a library, for that matter. . . .

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm


So saying that those rare people are is ridicule?

And of all creationists, no less?

I think you are too quick to see malice where there is none.

Not to say people don't ridicule creationists, but they weren't in that case.


I see only what I am exposed to repeatedly in reference to creationism and God--ridicule. If I am not to be expected to conclude that the purpose is ridicule then the intensity and frequency of the ridicule must decrease in order for me to be logically able to begin honestly giving benefits of the doubt. Otherwise it is only natural that I expect more of the same since I haven't been given any logical reason to expect otherwise.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by LW
No creationist that I know about claims that Usshers calculation is the Holy Truth. Not a single one.

Here's one of the most known creationists, Ken Ham (http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/play.aspx%3FmediaID%3D011029_ans&qt=ussher&col=&n=2), explaining why Ussher is to be trusted - and that Ussher used only the bible. (It's at the beginning of the audio, so you don't have to get a headache by listening to all of it.)

Kent Hovind and Duane Gish are also proponents of Ussher.

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Radrook



I see only what I am exposed to repeatedly in reference to creationism and God--ridicule. If I am not to be expected to conclude that the purpose is ridicule then the intensity and frequency of the ridicule must decrease in order for me to be logically able to begin honestly giving benefits of the doubt. Otherwise it is only natural that I expect more of the same since I haven't been given any logical reason to expect otherwise.

Wouldn't it be better to check to see if the evidence demonstrates ridicule, instead of expecting it and misinterpreting the statements to fit this belief?

:D

[Doctor X]

CFLarsen:

why lie about evidences?

Are you 97% RandHalLindaFanNon-Sceptic?

Thank you

Here's one of the most known creationists, Ken Ham , explaining why Ussher is to be trusted - and that Ussher used only the bible. (It's at the beginning of the audio, so you don't have to get a headache by listening to all of it.)

Kent Hovind and Duane Gish are also proponents of Ussher.

Since Radrook has never heard of them they are not well known--PERIOD!

Please stop spreading misinformation!

--J.D.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Are you 97% RandHalLindaFanNon-Sceptic?

Thank you

....huh?

Originally posted by Doctor X
Since Radrook has never heard of them they are not well known--PERIOD!

Please stop spreading misinformation!

What? The Three Horsemen of Creationism? Surely, you're joking, Mr. X.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Radrook



I see only what I am exposed to repeatedly in reference to creationism and God--ridicule. If I am not to be expected to conclude that the purpose is ridicule then the intensity and frequency of the ridicule must decrease in order for me to be logically able to begin honestly giving benefits of the doubt. Otherwise it is only natural that I expect more of the same since I haven't been given any logical reason to expect otherwise.

The argument about how long a "day" could be stems from among those that attempt to reconcile Genesis with scientific conclusions, in order to defend the truth of the Bible. But upon reflection that may be a more uncommon belief than I supposed.

I meant no ridicule. The point I am seeking here is that those that claim the literal truth of the bible may be mistaken about how steadfastly their own beliefs hold to it. Perhaps I should ask first, among those that are in this conversation--do you believe that every narrative in the bible is literally true?

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Radrook


Your conclusion necessitates that the supposed second writer go purposefully out of his way to stupidly contradict what was clearly written before.
No, it doesn't. I fail to see how you even remotely think this is the only possibility. If there were 2 writers, one might have gotten it wrong. Or if there was only one, he failed to go back and check it himself. Or, one (or both) of the writers were writing down an oral history passed to them that contradiced the other. I am sure there are many more possibilities.


Care to tell me what contradictions you see?

You know it so well, supposedly, you should be able to find it. But I did you tell you the easiest one: The first chapter has a different order of creation than the second. Namely, the order of man and the animals. I forget off the top of my head which had man first, but you can read it and find out.

Or that it must be in the exact order as the previous synopsis. The reader is expected to be discriminating and accept the first as a concise precise detailed account and the second as a generalization to enhance it.

Errrr, where did you get that idea? Was it in the author's notes? I didn't see the author's notes!

If the reader cannot be relied upon to use his intelligence to discern this then writing such an additional explanatory brief account could confuse. But since the Bible writer counted on reader common sense he added that particular addition.

And common sense tells me that there are inconsistencies. Not that I should instictively know which chapter to take as factual observations and which to take as "an additional explanatory brief account."

It is the repeated lack of common sense applied to the Bible and put forth as evidence of its lack of contradictions that males discussions in reference to the Bible with such persons useless.
Italicized words are my addition.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by DaveW

No, it doesn't. I fail to see how you even remotely think this is the only possibility. If there were 2 writers, one might have gotten it wrong. Or if there was only one, he failed to go back and check it himself. Or, one (or both) of the writers were writing down an oral history passed to them that contradiced the other. I am sure there are many more possibilities.


Pehaps this is the explanation you seek?
Probably not--right?

Excerpt
Genesis contradictions?
In Genesis chapter 2 the order of creation seems to be different to that in chapter 1 with the animals being created (2:19) after Adam (2:7). Doesn’t the Bible contradict itself here?

by Don Batten

First published in:
Creation 18(4):44–45
September–November 1996

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.


Genesis contradictions?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp





.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Radrook



Pehaps this is the explanation you seek?
Probably not--right?

Excerpt
Genesis contradictions?
In Genesis chapter 2 the order of creation seems to be different to that in chapter 1 with the animals being created (2:19) after Adam (2:7). Doesn’t the Bible contradict itself here?

by Don Batten

First published in:
Creation 18(4):44–45
September–November 1996

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.


Genesis contradictions?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp





.

Interesting. I will take a look at that link and get back to you. I suppose you are looking into the other points of my post as well? I'll wait.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by DaveW


Interesting. I will take a look at that link and get back to you. I suppose you are looking into the other points of my post as well? I'll wait.

No real need since this is the crux of the matter being discussed.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Radrook


No real need since this is the crux of the matter being discussed.

There are other matters being discussed. Ignore them if you wish, I suppose.

As to that link: It certainly didn't cover all of Genesis, but still pretty interesting. Most of the arguments are begging the question, though (I think that is the right term). They assume that the writings are divinely inspired, then use that assumption to show that they must be divinely inspired. Since I don't know Hebrew, I suppose that is a reasonable explanation of the inconsistency I mentioned.

I suppose I could dig for some more inconsistencies in Genesis that aren't covered in that link, but would that really do any good? Would you just ignore them or claim that my interpretation is wrong?

[DaveW]

From that article you linked to:
Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

Problem is, it doesn't appear that they looked at Gen 2:18:

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

It seems more reasonable to me that context of the verb in question is referring back to 2:18, not chapter 1.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by DaveW



As to that link: It certainly didn't cover all of Genesis,

Why would you NOW demand that it cover all of Genesis when the focus was chosen by you to be the issue that we were discussing?




but still pretty interesting. Most of the arguments are begging the question, though (I think that is the right term). They assume that the writings are divinely inspired, then use that assumption to show that they must be divinely inspired.

That is NOT what the explanation said.
The explanation said that the Hebrew word used is mistranslated and that the proper translation of it would rid the account of the supposed contradiction you accuse it of.





Since I don't know Hebrew, I suppose that is a reasonable explanation of the inconsistency I mentioned.

Since you don't know Hebrew then why not avail yourself of a Hebrew Lexicon instead of conveniently insinuating that the article writer is being dishonest.

I suppose I could dig for some more inconsistencies in Genesis that aren't covered in that link, but would that really do any good? Would you just ignore them or claim that my interpretation is wrong?


Dig up more?
For what?
So that when you are presented with counter-evidence you can accuse the providers of counter evidence of all being in collusion and dishonest? Or else go off on an irrelevant tangent by changing subjects?


The issue was not divine inspiration.
The issue according to you was blatant contradiction.
The one evading the issue is actually you by shifting subjects to other areas which have nothing to do with your accusation of contradiction. Neither is your ability to scrape up further seeming contradictions relevant. I am certain that you can dig up more seeming discrepancies. The real question has now become why you ignore proof given and prefer to change subjects instead of humbly conceding that you were wrong.

And if indeed that is your modus operandi then how reasonable is it to expect me to engage in such a fruitless activity?

BTW
This is a prime example of why I do not like to debate!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by DaveW
From that article you linked to:


Problem is, it doesn't appear that they looked at Gen 2:18:



It seems more reasonable to me that context of the verb in question is referring back to 2:18, not chapter 1.

There is an ancient proverb that says:
There is no one blinder than he who refuses to see.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Radrook


Why would you NOW demand that it cover all of Genesis when the focus was chosen by you to be the issue that we were discussing?

I demanded no such thing. Sorry for making it sound that way. This was more a lament on my part as it would have been interesting to see.


That is NOT what the explanation said.
The explanation said that the Hebrew word used is mistranslated and that the proper translation of it would rid the account of the supposed contradiction you accuse it of.
I was commenting on the rest of the article. As to it being a mistranslation, see my next post.


Since you don't know Hebrew then why not avail yourself of a Hebrew Lexicon instead of conveniently insinuating that the article writer is being dishonest.
Show me where I insinuated this. It was certainly not my intention.



Dig up more?
For what?


To show you examples of contradictions I was talking of, and that you asked for.

So that when you are presented with counter-evidence you can accuse the providers of counter evidence of all being in collusion and dishonest?

Which is why I won't. It'll turn in to a he said/she said type of thing.
Or else go off on an irrelevant tangent by changing subjects?
My, aren't we full of accusations?


The issue was not divine inspiration.
The issue according to you was blatant contradiction.
The one evading the issue is actually you by shifting subjects to other areas which have nothing to do with your accusation of contradiction. Neither is your ability to scrape up further seeming contradictions relevant. I am certain that you can dig up more seeming discrepancies. The real question has now become why you ignore proof given and prefer to change subjects instead of humbly conceding that you were wrong. See above.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Radrook


There is an ancient proverb that says:
There is no one blinder than he who refuses to see.

Hmm, ok. Would you like to adress my point or just throw out old proverbs?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by DaveW


Hmm, ok. Would you like to adress my point or just throw out old proverbs?

I find the explanation satisfactory.
You find it unsatisfactory.
So I guess we simply differ in opinion in that area.

[Ossai]

Radrook
We are still awaiting your replies on a few other threads.

Christians and Reality (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41977&pagenumber=4)

Gullible People (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870529519#post1870529519)

Dumbness and god belief (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42782&pagenumber=2)
Why did God create the tree of knowledge?
(http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42530&perpage=40&pagenumber=6) The original topic.

This is just a list of the threads I’ve been trying to keep current on. I’m sure there are others as well.

BTW

All life we observe is 100% moral.
All live comes from life.
Life came from / was created by God.
God was alive.
God was created by or came from other life.
God was mortal.
God is dead.

Ossai

(to everyone else - I'm wondering if I'm on Radrook's ignore list)

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Here's one of the most known creationists, Ken Ham (http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/play.aspx%3FmediaID%3D011029_ans&qt=ussher&col=&n=2), explaining why Ussher is to be trusted - and that Ussher used only the bible. (It's at the beginning of the audio, so you don't have to get a headache by listening to all of it.)

Sorry, I can't open it. When it mentions that Ussher used only the Bible, does it give any justification for that claim or is it just a statement of fact?

And anyway, when you attack any Biblical literalist chronology, you don't have to resort to stupid arguments since there are so many good ones.

You may, for example, point out that it puts the flood right in the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom and that just perhaps the Egyptians might have noticed that they all were drowned in it.

Or that according to the Bible, the different languages weren't created until 1785 years after the creation (again in the middle of Old Kingdom) but Egyptians had been using hieroglyphs and Sumerians cuneiform script for hundreds of years before that.

Or note that if the creationists claim that all those written records were made after the Tower of Babel thing, then they have to squeeze about 1500 years worth of Egyptian written records and physical monuments into the space of about 600 years (400 if you take Ussher literally). And the same thing for Sumerian history.

Or stuff like the Sumerian Temple at Eridu that had already been rebuilt at least ten times (and perhaps as many as 17 times) before the conventional historical date of 2100 BC.

Or mention in passing that the Sumerian sources of the flood (that some creationists like to claim as support for global flood) date it to have happened at roughly 28000 BC.

Or you could throw in the Chinese civilization that brings similar problems as the Sumerians and Egyptians.

Or as a final try you could mention all the physical problems of the world-wide flood.

You have absolutely no reason to use bogus arguments against Bible chronologies; there are enough good ones to use.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by LW
Sorry, I can't open it. When it mentions that Ussher used only the Bible, does it give any justification for that claim or is it just a statement of fact?

The bible says so. It's the word of god, after all.

Originally posted by LW
And anyway, when you attack any Biblical literalist chronology, you don't have to resort to stupid arguments since there are so many good ones.

You may, for example, point out that it puts the flood right in the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom and that just perhaps the Egyptians might have noticed that they all were drowned in it.

Or that according to the Bible, the different languages weren't created until 1785 years after the creation (again in the middle of Old Kingdom) but Egyptians had been using hieroglyphs and Sumerians cuneiform script for hundreds of years before that.

Or note that if the creationists claim that all those written records were made after the Tower of Babel thing, then they have to squeeze about 1500 years worth of Egyptian written records and physical monuments into the space of about 600 years (400 if you take Ussher literally). And the same thing for Sumerian history.

Or stuff like the Sumerian Temple at Eridu that had already been rebuilt at least ten times (and perhaps as many as 17 times) before the conventional historical date of 2100 BC.

Or mention in passing that the Sumerian sources of the flood (that some creationists like to claim as support for global flood) date it to have happened at roughly 28000 BC.

Or you could throw in the Chinese civilization that brings similar problems as the Sumerians and Egyptians.

Or as a final try you could mention all the physical problems of the world-wide flood.

You have absolutely no reason to use bogus arguments against Bible chronologies; there are enough good ones to use.

All good reasons. We all have different reasons, I guess.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


The bible says so. It's the word of god, after all.


The bible says that Ussher based his calculations only on the bible? ;-P Somehow I suspect that's not what you meant to say.

[Doctor X]

What? The Three Horsemen of Creationism? Surely, you're joking, Mr. X.


:D

Do not tell me you have forgotten about Carlos you RandicultnoscepticHalfan you.

Thanks.

Ossai:

The idiotis ignoring both the texts and scholarship. You think you are special?

--J.D.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The bible says that Ussher based his calculations only on the bible? ;-P Somehow I suspect that's not what you meant to say.

No. Ken Ham said that Ussher based his calcs on the bible, because it was the word of god.

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


The bible says so. It's the word of god, after all.


I'm convinced. The Bible authors prophesied at least 1500 years before the fact that Ussher would use just the Bible in his annals. I think I'll have to get me rebaptized or something, that kind of predictive ability is supernatural.

Or, perhaps before going through all that trouble I could verify that the Bible actually says that. So, could you please give the reference to the Bible verse that speaks about Ussher's chronology?

I don't have any trouble believing that some creationists believe that Ussher's chronology is based on the Bible alone. However, that doesn't make it so. The creationists say a lot of things that are not true. As I posted before, I don't have an easy access to Ussher's book so I can't check it myself. If you want to convince me that Ussher got the exact date from the Bible, the easiest way to do so is to post the verse in question. I haven't been able to find such a verse.

All good reasons. We all have different reasons, I guess.

I guess so. Though, the difference is that when I present my reasons the creationists wont burst in laughter and refute them, but they have to address them the traditional way by ignoring them.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by LW
Or, perhaps before going through all that trouble I could verify that the Bible actually says that. So, could you please give the reference to the Bible verse that speaks about Ussher's chronology?

To save us from bickering hypothetical might and could'aves - http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/ussher.html has an excerpt from Ussher's "The Annals of the World", which makes it clear that Ussher used several extra-biblical sources.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by LW
So, could you please give the reference to the Bible verse that speaks about Ussher's chronology?

Let me clarify, once more: I have not claimed that the bible speaks of Ussher's chronology. I have said that Ussher got his chronology from the bible.

Originally posted by LW
I don't have any trouble believing that some creationists believe that Ussher's chronology is based on the Bible alone. However, that doesn't make it so. The creationists say a lot of things that are not true. As I posted before, I don't have an easy access to Ussher's book so I can't check it myself. If you want to convince me that Ussher got the exact date from the Bible, the easiest way to do so is to post the verse in question. I haven't been able to find such a verse.

Let me know what you found out.

Originally posted by LW
I guess so. Though, the difference is that when I present my reasons the creationists wont burst in laughter and refute them, but they have to address them the traditional way by ignoring them.

No, they don't. They will treat any argument that challenges their beliefs the same way.

Edited to add:

Originally posted by Leif Roar
To save us from bickering hypothetical might and could'aves - http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/ussher.html has an excerpt from Ussher's "The Annals of the World", which makes it clear that Ussher used several extra-biblical sources.

Then I stand corrected.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LW



I guess so. Though, the difference is that when I present my reasons the creationists wont burst in laughter and refute them, but they have to address them the traditional way by ignoring them.

That from a person who ignores any counter-evidence and tries to weasle out of the problem by going off on irrelevant tangents!

[LW]

Originally posted by Radrook

That from a person who ignores any counter-evidence and tries to weasle out of the problem by going off on irrelevant tangents!

That post made my day, thanks.

May I refresh your memory on how our last discussion went:

I: Have you examined modern Bible scholarship?

You: Two guys on tv claimed that Bible is rubbish.

I: Have you read an actual book on the subject or are you relying on tv impressions?

You: I'm not an expert on atheist evolutionist literature.

Me: We are discussing Bible scholarship, not biology. I think your evangelizing would be more effective if you knew what the arguments of the other side are.

You: Don't twist what I say. I'm not having a test here.

I think I was quite consistent in talking about Bible scholarship, the diversions to atheism and biology were initiated by you.

But anyway, does your objection of my observation that creationists ignore nasty pieces of evidence given in old written records extend to actually providing evidence why the history formed from them is incorrect?

Namely, if I go through the trouble of giving an detailed explanation why the Egyptian written history is in conflict with literalist Bible history, will you provide an equally detailed explanation on why I am wrong?

Or are you going to prove my point by ignoring this offer?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LW


That post made my day, thanks.

May I refresh your memory on how our last discussion went:

I: Have you examined modern Bible scholarship?

You: Two guys on tv claimed that Bible is rubbish.

I: Have you read an actual book on the subject or are you relying on tv impressions?

You: I'm not an expert on atheist evolutionist literature.

Me: We are discussing Bible scholarship, not biology. I think your evangelizing would be more effective if you knew what the arguments of the other side are.

You: Don't twist what I say. I'm not having a test here.

I think I was quite consistent in talking about Bible scholarship, the diversions to atheism and biology were initiated by you.

But anyway, does your objection of my observation that creationists ignore nasty pieces of evidence given in old written records extend to actually providing evidence why the history formed from them is incorrect?

Namely, if I go through the trouble of giving an detailed explanation why the Egyptian written history is in conflict with literalist Bible history, will you provide an equally detailed explanation on why I am wrong?

Or are you going to prove my point by ignoring this offer?

I am not here to debate.
I am not here to convert.
I am simply here.

[Radrook]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LW
[B]

That post made my day, thanks.

May I refresh your memory on how our last discussion went:

I: Have you examined modern Bible scholarship?

You: Two guys on tv claimed that Bible is rubbish.

I: Have you read an actual book on the subject or are you relying on tv impressions?

You: I'm not an expert on atheist evolutionist literature.

Me: We are discussing Bible scholarship, not biology. I think your evangelizing would be more effective if you knew what the arguments of the other side are.

You: Don't tw

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Let me clarify, once more: I have not claimed that the bible speaks of Ussher's chronology. I have said that Ussher got his chronology from the bible.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.


No, they don't. They will treat any argument that challenges their beliefs the same way.

Actually, they tend to give good (with suitable values of "good") rebuttals to arguments that are weak to begin with, like the "pi is 3" thing from the Kings.

Maybe I have been spoiled but I've mostly debated Biblical literalism against people who are actually quite intelligent (engineering students). One of the first creationists that I became acquitanced with is actually one of the brightest guys that I've ever known. (I don't know if he is still a creationist, he was when he started studying in the university).

They tend to be able to find flaws in weak arguments against their beliefs. Their standard answer to the good questions is: "I don't know, I have to check that thing" and then you don't hear them saying anything about that subject later on. The second standard answer is: "Take Jesus into your heart and you'll understand."

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Radrook
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LW


That post made my day, thanks.

May I refresh your memory on how our last discussion went:

I: Have you examined modern Bible scholarship?

You: Two guys on tv claimed that Bible is rubbish.

I: Have you read an actual book on the subject or are you relying on tv impressions?

You: I'm not an expert on atheist evolutionist literature.

Me: We are discussing Bible scholarship, not biology. I think your evangelizing would be more effective if you knew what the arguments of the other side are.

You: Don't tw


Here is what you really are saying and how illogical it is when expressed via syllogisms:

1. You have not examined modern Bible scholarship.

Anyone who doesn't cite modern Bible scholarship hasn't read it.
Joe doesn't cite modern Bible scholarship.
Joe hasn't read it.

Perhaps Joe has read it and finds it too ridiculous to mention.

2. You rely on tv impressions.

Anyone giving one tv example totally relies on tv impressions.
Joe gave one tv example.
Joe totally relies on tv impressions.


One example is insufficient basis to reach such a conclusion.

3. You are here to evangelize.

Everyone who cites the Bible is out to evangelize.
Joe cites the Bible.
Joe is out to evangelize.

Joe might cite the Bible simply to back up what he is saying.


4. You don't know what the opposing argument is.

Everyone who doesn't agree doesn't know the opposinbg argument.
Joe doesn't agree.
Joe doesn't know the opposing argument.

Joe might know and because of that disagrees.

Logic is merciless and takes no prisoners my friend.

[Ossai]

Doctor X
The idiotis ignoring both the texts and scholarship. You think you are special?
No. I was just trying to determine if I was on his ignore list. Apparently, at this time, I’m not (he replied to a more recent post in a different thread).

Combine the current situation with:
1. His lack of biblical knowledge (avoidance of debate with yourself and scribble).
2. His lack of acknowledgement of biblical scholarship.
3. His continuous posting of fallacies (not true Scotsman and argument from ignorance).
4. His continuous attempts to shift the topic (brining up Dresden, etcetera, repeatedly).
5. Dehumanization of non-christians (atheists, satanists have no morals).
6. His unwillingness to define what is necessary to be considered a TRUE Christian.
7. His own cherry picking of the bible while claiming not to be. (taking verses out of context)
8. His own claims of not being here to convert or debate – yet he keeps coming back. (this thread)
9. The apologetics he keeps posting / linking.

What conclusion do you reach? (I think he’s preachy and unwilling or unable to debate because he lacks an understanding of the subject matter.)

Ossai

[Doctor X]

Ossai:

Methinks you write the truth.

I had thought he might have changed a bit--ever the optimist--when he wrote a long response to one of my posts.

No.

He did exactly what you stated.

It is fear, methinks. If he starts studying the Bible and the basis of his religion, he may lose his feeling that he knows what is Truth [Tm.--Ed.]

This is a common problem which, frankly, confronts every religious scholar of religious texts. Despite his attempt to smear them, most are religious--some very religious. Indeed, much of scholarship involves correcting a religeous bias.

One of the major figures in OT research is/was Albright. Even he accepted the Documentary Hypothesis. However, he wished to establish that Israelis were monotheistic from the beginning--and that the OT texts were largely historical.

This he could not do, and to his credit, he rather admitted it.

Mark Smith--another "atheist/evil/scholar/ohmy!"--freely admits his faith in his works. He notes, honestly, that the desire to DENY polytheism in Israeli religion drove a lot of misconceptions of the texts.

However, the texts would not go away. Thus, scholars had to come to grips with the texts.

He has not lost his faith in a god. Many, if not most, have not either. A major figure in OT research--F. M. Cross is a Christian last I looked, yet he freely discusses the comparisons between "Israeli" and "Canaanite" myths and champions the theory that "YHWH" is a verb attached to a larger lost El title--"El who makes/creates"

Or . . . as he puts it . . . "the causitive imperfect of the Proto-Canaanite-Hebrew verb, hwy, 'to be.'"

Of course. . . .

This has not ruined his faith.

Obviously, I do not believe this way, but I do not fault scholars for having faith.

Similarly, an atheist should not try to read a bias into the texts. I really wish I had bought the crank book on the Bible that tried to prove "666 = YHWH" AND the authors intended to prove that all gods were evil and we should not worship them.

Huh?!!

--J.D.