Thread: Creation

Originally Posted by Arrianna

1-6000 years, creation of the earth.
6-7000 years, God rested/Garden of Eden.
7000-???? years, the Garden of Eden.
Reset...
App 4000 BC Adam "born".
Between 2400 and 2300 the Flood.
Between 2300 and ???? Peleg lives and the "earth (continents) is divided".
App 2000 BC Abraham.
Between 1400 and 1300 Moses
App 600 BC Babylon conquers Israel and carries them off into captivity.
Reset...
0 BC/AD Christs Birth (though really they think it was about 6BC).
etc etc.
App 2008 Now.

lol fixed. Thanks. Can you tell I was distracted?

Originally Posted by Scourge

Actually I was thinking along the line of the domino effect.

Gotcha. That makes more sense, sort of.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

I am sorry but of all the reasons I have heard to contradict the Bible that one has to be one of the most absurd. A "3000 year old book" that had laws concerning something that was common at the time, is still in existence today, and was only questioned in the last 200 years?

As for the other the Bible does not say the world is 3000 years old. Here is the time line given.

1-6000 years, creation of the earth.
6-7000 years, God rested/Garden of Eden.
7000-???? years, the Garden of Eden.
Reset...
App 4000 BC Adam "born".
Between 2400 and 2300 the Flood.
Between 2300 and ???? Peleg lives and the "earth (continents) is divided".
App 2000 BC Abraham.
Between 1400 and 1300 Moses
App 600 BC Babylon conquers Israel and carries them off into captivity.
Reset...
0 BC/AD Christs Birth (though really they think it was about 6BC).
etc etc.
App 2008 Now.


Note: It doesn't say how long the Garden of Eden was around or if Adams age is based on when he became mortal or when he was born.
We don't know the exact time of Peleg but he was Noah's great-great-great grandson (Peleg-Eber-Salah-Araphaxad-Shem-Noah). I love the name Araphax, *cough* but back on subject.

The point is Biblically the time given is approximatly 6000 years not 3000 and that isn't the age of the earth it is the age of "man" as given from Adam's "birth".


Oh and one final point, it does not say the world/universe/man came from nothing. As I pointed out before it was created/organized not snap your fingers there it is magic walla. (It does make a pretty picture though.)

But that is how Creationism is presented from what I have heard. Anyways the Bible doesn't even give the Earth an age but a lot of Christians believe it was created when the Bible was written. The age of man did not start 6,000 years ago. I would say its a little more than that. I don't know the exact number but whenever the neanderthals first came into play. Man wasn't immediately civilized, the Bible I believe has Adam actually speaking whereas the Neandrathals could only utter sounds.

Originally Posted by Descended From Darkness

But that is how Creationism is presented from what I have heard. Anyways the Bible doesn't even give the Earth an age but a lot of Christians believe it was created when the Bible was written. The age of man did not start 6,000 years ago. I would say its a little more than that. I don't know the exact number but whenever the neanderthals first came into play. Man wasn't immediately civilized, the Bible I believe has Adam actually speaking whereas the Neandrathals could only utter sounds.

Are you sure? I don't know many (ok, any if they stop to think about it) who think that Adam wrote Genesis. Sure there are those who believe that the earth is literally only 6000 yrs and the world was literally built in 6 of our 24 hour days but there is hardly a standard consensus as you can see by the responses already.

Neanderthals? Are you sure? Neanderthal's Gift Of Speech | Science and Technology | BBC World Service
As someone already said there are some who think they were just another type of human. Ehh... either way it looks like they could talk.

I like how noone clued into miroku's after his damnation explaination for AD... It's actually supposed to be latin. Anno Domino or Dominae depending who you ask... either way it means roughly the same thing and has nothing to do with damnation... I mean a savior being damned would be pretty screwed up even for the catholic relegion and timetable...

on the pro six days side... in the original scripts for the old testament well not actually the real brass plates but the different lits in the original language day has a very separate meaning actually it's a word without english equivalence it's a word the describes a set period of time which is now obsolete. Also to put it in perspective... genesis is a book of Moses meaning that it's him simplifying things to relate it to his followers after god has simplified it to him... so if we replace the word days with stages things become a little more clear and then we don't have to bicker over where to split the head on timeperiods. I mean evencarbon dating is flawed in the respect that according to both, science and the bible creation accured only after earth was a hurtling rock in space that was uninhabitable and was hit by meteors and stuff...

There are people who would argue that neanderthals and dinosaurs disprove the relegious view... this is unacceptable because those forms of life clearly existed before we developed life and were wiped out by some sort of ice age... who's to say that this wasn't a restarting point in the entire history for the earth? that maybe for a while all life was wiped out and that we are not really related to that chain of evolution after all the evolution theories can be little more then people trying to piece together a puzzle without any real idea of what picture the piece is supposed to make and every piece fits together just as well as any other...

However I don't understand why these two views must take a stand against each other. It is to my knowledge that in the past when science and relegion have disagreed on something that the best answer is a merge of the two...

Originally Posted by Corvus

I like how noone clued into miroku's after his damnation explaination for AD...

There is a difference between noticing and caring enough to comment.

Originally Posted by Corvus

However I don't understand why these two views must take a stand against each other. It is to my knowledge that in the past when science and relegion have disagreed on something that the best answer is a merge of the two...

And that is one of the many points I have been trying to make when I put out there my thoughts. In retrospect, science and religion are both full of holes but when pieced together they tend to compliment each other rather nicely. But people on both sides say this is incorrect because several pieces of the bible had to be removed and or changed or because some pieces of science has to be removed and or changed. But in all those changes are miner and you still get simply nothing more then a different view of the same picture, like my David and Goliath example. It did happen, just not the way it was written in the bible. I guess my analogy is this. You can sit down in a circle and see what others see, or you can stand up and see beyond what other see. The point to the analogy is this. Every one is facing a different direction so something’s are similar, something are not, and when you stand up your taking a look at the world from a different perspective and possibilities, but you can always sit back down if you want. As for me, I am one of those who are willing to stand up and see the possibilities that are out there. But Of cores I will get a bunch of responses saying that I am wrong which I have no doubt that I could very we be, and that I am an idiot and that I will burn in hell and blah blah blah even though the bible was written by man and not god, not even Jesus our Christ and savior (I am NOT be sarcastic about Jesus being our Christ and savior as I do believe that) didn’t even put down a single paragraph in there, and of cores science with logical thinking with its trial and error methods and still disagree on things on a daily basses.

Now I am not trying to convert any one from their beliefes, I am just putting in my two sense worth in what I believe in and what I know. If people have a problem with it well then sorry for having my own opinion.

P.S. I am kind of grumpy this morning.

Well I am a creationist believer.... but I don't believe that the bible description is literal. I mean I know and believe God is all powerful and everything and If he wanted to create the world in 6 days he could. But I believe the creation and the evolution come together. By the way the 1 Day = to 1000 years is in Psalms, and the author is being poetic.
Anyways... I believe that all in the bible cannot be taken literally and yes I believe the Genesis description of the creation is one of the passages that cannot be taken literally timing wise....
Actually sometimes I have wondered about the theories that are out there... what if they are all correct? The bible points that "God said and it happened" but it doesn't say how it happened....