6000 year old earth

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm still pretty sure they were aware that ribs can't be used to create women back then.

Theokhoth

People looked at ribs.

Saw that ribs did not become women.

The creators of mathematics, philosophy and what would become modern science were not stupid.

It's not stupid to believe the ribs thing in ancient times in my opinion...

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The fact that ribs don't turn into women.Silverbond

So ribs were turning into women back in the day?

There are still millions of people today who take the bible literally. Most people are significantly more knowledgeable and well educated now than anyone would have been when the bible was written. It's entirely likely (even probable) that the bible would have been accepted as the literal truth back then.

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]It wasnt a fact back then...

RearNakedChoke

So ribs were turning into women back in the day?

There are still millions of people today who take the bible literally. Most people are significantly more knowledgeable and well educated now than anyone would have been when the bible was written. It's entirely likely (even probable) that the bible would have been accepted as the literal truth back then.

No where in the bible gives a date to when god made earth.dontshackzmii

doesn't it say something like the eart was created in 6 days but each day is a 1000 years or something? either way the earth is well over 6000 years old

The "6000 year old" thing comes from something some Bible scholar came up with tracing back the lineages of people.PannicAtack

And, to be fair, was in fact quite well-accepted. St. Augustine expressed at one point a pretty evident stance that (he believed) Scripture says that the world is not 6,000 years old.

You do know thats not a literal account right?

dontshackzmii

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

[QUOTE="jman1553"]

The bible does talk about how the world's first woman was created from a man's RIB.

-DirtySanchez-

You do know thats not a literal account right?

Uh, forgive my flame bait. Just thought it would help spark another 20 page religion topic. But why is it that the Bible sometimes is taken literally, and sometimes it is not? I think if you're going to believe in something, don't half-ass it.

jman1553

Because parts are too absurd in modern times to be taken literally and others arn't. And it is easier to just "reinterpret the meaning" then it is to edit the text to reflect modern times.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]LoL wut? People also believed in literal creationism back then....:|

Gambler_3

No they didn't. They had creation myths that were designed for the purpose of demonstrating God's power to create. They had no idea how the world was created back then; read the Vedas, which are over ten thousand years old and flat out say "Nobody knows how the universe came to exist. Perhaps God knows--or perhaps he does not."

But wait 10000 year old vedas? Is there such a thing?:o

But hindus do believe in the literal account of the 3 rishis and the beginning of mankind so ya my point stands...

Be very careful when you say Hindus believe anything. Hinduism isn't a single set of beliefs, the religions practiced by the various people of India vary quite widely, and that's not considering the fact that there are also Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, etc. in India too.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No they didn't. They had creation myths that were designed for the purpose of demonstrating God's power to create. They had no idea how the world was created back then; read the Vedas, which are over ten thousand years old and flat out say "Nobody knows how the universe came to exist. Perhaps God knows--or perhaps he does not."

fourier404

But wait 10000 year old vedas? Is there such a thing?:o

But hindus do believe in the literal account of the 3 rishis and the beginning of mankind so ya my point stands...

Be very careful when you say Hindus believe anything. Hinduism isn't a single set of beliefs, the religions practiced by the various people of India vary quite widely, and that's not considering the fact that there are also Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, etc. in India too.

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

You do know thats not a literal account right?

momo372

It's symbology like most of the Bible, which is what makes the Bible such an open-ended book for many many different interpretations.

[QUOTE="fourier404"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]I misunderstood your post a little...

But wait 10000 year old vedas? Is there such a thing?:o

But hindus do believe in the literal account of the 3 rishis and the beginning of mankind so ya my point stands...

Gambler_3

Be very careful when you say Hindus believe anything. Hinduism isn't a single set of beliefs, the religions practiced by the various people of India vary quite widely, and that's not considering the fact that there are also Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, etc. in India too.

They mean how long ago was it created in that 6 day period.

gah forgot to quote and im too lazy to fix it.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]You do know thats not a literal account right?

foxhound_fox

Not to ultimately prove beyond doubt that it isnt literal but to give valid reasons as to why it shouldnt be literal or that a literal approach most definitely does not by definition lead to a more precise/accurate understanding of a text.

PS: Not arguing; just making a point. Hence I butchered your post.

I dont get why christians listen to anything else other than the 10 commandments. Cause those seem to be like the core of the whole religion, everything else seems to just be drivel that was added by random dude after dude over the past 2000 years

Well there's one point on which I completely agree with the young Earthers: The Earth has indeed been around for the last six thousand years.

It's the "and then some" part that always manages to come between us.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

You do know thats not a literal account right?

Brainkiller05

wow - someone who has never read the Bible giving his 2 cents.

This has probably been mentioned before, but I'm not going to read every page in this topic. Apparently some people added the amount of years from the ages of the many people the Bible mentions to come up with the 6000 years. There is an error in that there are times in the Bible we do not know how long it has been. We can only make assumptions. Personally, I have a strong testimony that God does exist and I also believe the Earth to be much older than 6000 years. There are those who believe in the 6000 year old Earth. I'm not one.

Yeah the Bible never once says the world is 6,000 years old. We can't conceive of how God experiences time since we can't fathom the concept of experiencing past, present, and future as ONE simultaneous instant. For God, from the birth of the Universe to now, it's been one instant. One eternal instant. This is science as well. Science is coming to the conclusion that time as we know it does not exist as linear path like most people think, but it's actually us that is passing THROUGH time. The only time there has ever been is now so it doesn't matter if God created the world in "6 days" or if the Earth is "6,000" or "4.5 billion" years old. It's all been one instant for God.

These days every time i hear some one bashing the bible they talk about this "6000 year old earth" . No where in the bible gives a date to when god made earth . It comes from this bishop in 1650 ad who tried to guess the age of earth from a bunch of guesses .

I just wish people would learn what they are talking about be for bashing it every chance they get .

dontshackzmii

The 6,000 year date thatfundiesadhereto is derived from thelineagesin the bible. Somebody added all thelineagesin the oldtestamentup and came up with a date between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago for the special creation of the world. So while the bible doesn'texplicitlystate that theearthis 6000 years old, it doesindirectlyreference it. And it is argued byYEC'sacross theinterwebsthat the earth is about 6000 years old.

WHY DOES GAMESPOT DELETE MUH SPACES?????!!!!!!!!

These days every time i hear some one bashing the bible they talk about this "6000 year old earth" . No where in the bible gives a date to when god made earth . It comes from this bishop in 1650 ad who tried to guess the age of earth from a bunch of guesses .

I just wish people would learn what they are talking about be for bashing it every chance they get .

dontshackzmii

Yeah the Bible never once says the world is 6,000 years old. We can't conceive of how God experiences time since we can't fathom the concept of experiencing past, present, and future as ONE simultaneous instant. For God, from the birth of the Universe to now, it's been one instant. One eternal instant. This is science as well. Science is coming to the conclusion that time as we know it does not exist as linear path like most people think, but it's actually us that is passing THROUGH time. The only time there has ever been is now so it doesn't matter if God created the world in "6 days" or if the Earth is "6,000" or "4.5 billion" years old. It's all been one instant for God.

MystikFollower

You seriously don't understand the pyhsics principles behind time do you? Youve picked out one true point about time not being linear and used it in the wrong manner, scientists now think time moves in oscilations not speradicly as you've said.

Also the 6k years thing comes from an Irish priest who used the lineage of Jesus at the begining of the new testament and some salinity estimation (Which is horribly inacurate) to figure out the age of the earth.

I have never heard that mentioned before..

I don't really care when the Earth was created. Does it really matter? Maybe if you were studying things on fossils, climate change, etc. We can't really prevent all that so just go with the flow.

I don't really care when the Earth was created. Does it really matter? Maybe if you were studying things on fossils, climate change, etc. We can't really prevent all that so just go with the flow.

Gaming-Planet

Many believe that the Bible asserts when the Earth was created, and therefore that anything contradicting that contradicts the Bible. I cannot imagine how someone in that situation could think that this topic was irrelevant.

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

Yeah the Bible never once says the world is 6,000 years old. We can't conceive of how God experiences time since we can't fathom the concept of experiencing past, present, and future as ONE simultaneous instant. For God, from the birth of the Universe to now, it's been one instant. One eternal instant. This is science as well. Science is coming to the conclusion that time as we know it does not exist as linear path like most people think, but it's actually us that is passing THROUGH time. The only time there has ever been is now so it doesn't matter if God created the world in "6 days" or if the Earth is "6,000" or "4.5 billion" years old. It's all been one instant for God.

MattDistillery

You seriously don't understand the pyhsics principles behind time do you? Youve picked out one true point about time not being linear and used it in the wrong manner, scientists now think time moves in oscilations not speradicly as you've said.

Also the 6k years thing comes from an Irish priest who used the lineage of Jesus at the begining of the new testament and some salinity estimation (Which is horribly inacurate) to figure out the age of the earth.

Which is not the Bible. But yeah, I'll admit I don't understand half the math in it, but all that I read about time came from a pretty interesting article in Discover Magazine. That, and various spiritual texts I've been studying that talk about our perception of time and reality and just how much of an illusion it all is. I know one thing, past and future don't exist. Whenever it was the past, it was now. Whenever the future comes, it'll still be now. The only thing that changes is my point of reference. Think of it as if you're in a massive cathedral sized room with a mural across every surface depicting a moment of your life. Now, you move along this mural focusing on different events that come into your perception, however all of it has already happened. That's how time is experienced by God. "The Alpha and the Omega" so to speak. God can perceive it all, and we experience time as linear due to our limited perspective in physical reality.

Light is a great example of something that exists in a timeless state. For us, the speed limit of the Universe is 186,000 miles per second. That is a constant that does not change regardless of how fast you are traveling in relation to light. Now science has shown that if you were to actually travel the speed of light, time and space would seem to shrink to nothing.For an observer actually traveling at the speed of light, the equations of Special Relativity predict that time would come to a complete standstill, and length would shrink to nothing. Physicists usually avoid considering this strange state of affairs by saying that, since nothing can ever attain the speed of light, we don't have to worry about any weird things that might go on at that speed.

The bible is attacked mostly by people who don't even understand it . They act like because they went to school at the age of 8 that they know everything . After talking with most atheists i know they don't even know what the bible is even about . ask anything more then common knowlege and they wont even come close to understanding it . people need to learn the bible for years be for they are an expert .

The bible is attacked mostly by people who don't even understand it . They act like because they went to school at the age of 8 that they know everything . After talking with most atheists i know they don't even know what the bible is even about . ask anything more then common knowlege and they wont even come close to understanding it . people need to learn the bible for years be for they are an expert .

dontshackzmii

That's a pretty generalized statement don't you think? I know plenty of people that label themselves Atheist who have done extensive reading and studying of the Bible. I even know a self-proclaimed Satanist who was raised Roman Catholic and understands every aspect of the Bible, more than some of my Christian friends. A lot of Atheists will even tell you that it was THROUGH reading and studying the Bible that they made the decision not to believe in God. Sure, a lot of people are probably exactly like you say, but it's still a generalization.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

These days every time i hear some one bashing the bible they talk about this "6000 year old earth" . No where in the bible gives a date to when god made earth . It comes from this bishop in 1650 ad who tried to guess the age of earth from a bunch of guesses .

I just wish people would learn what they are talking about be for bashing it every chance they get .

Frattracide

The 6,000 year date thatfundiesadhereto is derived from thelineagesin the bible. Somebody added all thelineagesin the oldtestamentup and came up with a date between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago for the special creation of the world. So while the bible doesn'texplicitlystate that theearthis 6000 years old, it doesindirectlyreference it. And it is argued byYEC'sacross theinterwebsthat the earth is about 6000 years old.

WHY DOES GAMESPOT DELETE MUH SPACES?????!!!!!!!!

Actually it doesn't really indirectly reference it since there are many different places in the Bible which never state how long it has been. That is what those who only go by the lineage do not mention.

I don't know why gamespot delete's your spaces (or mine) - :P

[QUOTE="jman1553"]

Uh, forgive my flame bait. Just thought it would help spark another 20 page religion topic. But why is it that the Bible sometimes is taken literally, and sometimes it is not? I think if you're going to believe in something, don't half-ass it.

Theokhoth

Theo is correct.:)

It's not one book, yet all books overlap and refer to each other.

[QUOTE="jman1553"]

The bible does talk about how the world's first woman was created from a man's RIB.

dontshackzmii

You do know thats not a literal account right?

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

[QUOTE="jman1553"]

The bible does talk about how the world's first woman was created from a man's RIB.

-DirtySanchez-

You do know thats not a literal account right?

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

You do know thats not a literal account right?

BubbaRay12

[QUOTE="BubbaRay12"]

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] you do know that none of the bible is right?St_JimmyX

[QUOTE="jman1553"]

The bible does talk about how the world's first woman was created from a man's RIB.

dontshackzmii

You do know thats not a literal account right?

[QUOTE="jman1553"]

The bible does talk about how the world's first woman was created from a man's RIB.

You do know thats not a literal account right?

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

[QUOTE="jman1553"]

The bible does talk about how the world's first woman was created from a man's RIB.

dk00111

You do know thats not a literal account right?

I think you can easily tell what sections should be taken as literal history and what should be taken as symbolic imagery. Since God is incomprehensible it seems to make sense that 2,000 years ago people would need allegory and imagery in order to make sense of the ultimate wisdom they were learning. Also, just read Revelation. That book is the best example of just how symbolic the Bible can be.

I think you can easily tell what sections should be taken as literal history and what should be taken as symbolic imagery. Since God is incomprehensible it seems to make sense that 2,000 years ago people would need allegory and imagery in order to make sense of the ultimate wisdom they were learning. Also, just read Revelation. That book is the best example of just how symbolic the Bible can be.

MystikFollower

Well, I don't think it's as clear-cut as many would imagine, considering that people continue to argue to this day over which parts are intended to be taken as literal accounts of that which happened in history precisely as written.

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

I think you can easily tell what sections should be taken as literal history and what should be taken as symbolic imagery. Since God is incomprehensible it seems to make sense that 2,000 years ago people would need allegory and imagery in order to make sense of the ultimate wisdom they were learning. Also, just read Revelation. That book is the best example of just how symbolic the Bible can be.

GabuEx

Well, I don't think it's as clear-cut as many would imagine, considering that people continue to argue to this day over which parts are intended to be taken as literal accounts of that which happened in history precisely as written.

I agree that it isn't as clear cut as I made it, but for me I can usually tell what should be taken literally and what should be read deeper to find the hidden meaning. I'm still trying to figure out if that is a weakness towards the Bible or if it was actually that way by design. Think about it, the Bible is probably the most influential and widely interpreted texts in history and it means different things to all different types of people. This is bad cause it means many denominations and many faiths can interpret the Scriptures to fit their own agendas. However, I can see why it would've been created that way, in order to be more understood by a much wider audience. It speaks to everybody differently and I think that's why it was written how it was written. To reach the various walks of life that would come into contact with it and speak to as many people as possible through various forms of literal history, symbolic imagery, and prophecy.

A few things here:
1) If God is incomprehensible to man, then how much credit do the descripions of God and his ways in the Bible have if they too are written by man?

2) Really, what it comes down to in my opinion, is that the reason why the Bible (and other holy books) are open to such a variety of interpretations is that it was written by man.

A few things here:
1) If God is incomprehensible to man, then how much credit do the descripions of God and his ways in the Bible have if they too are written by man?

2) Really, what it comes down to in my opinion, is that the reason why the Bible (and other holy books) are open to such a variety of interpretations is that it was written by man.

dk00111

1) Probably not much when it comes to Ultimate Reality. The Bible makes many references to the undeniable fact that the true nature of God is far incomprehensible to our limited minds in this existence. That is not to say that we can't understand aspects or interpret aspects, but we can't know and understand the true nature of God in this existence. It is impossible.

2) Well yes, it was written by Man, with divine inspiration. That means it came through a fallible filter and had to be understood and interpreted by those, writing it. Many Christians will say that it must be completely infallible because God would make sure his message got across perfectly, but I don't think that's necessarily true. He can inspire the message fully and completely, but if the person's filter for hearing and listening to that message isn't perfect (which I doubt anyone's is), then some things are bound to be misinterpreted and lost in translation.