StarGateWars Forums

@ Liquid: I want to know how exactly you determine the age of the earth using "dates"

The Bible does not say the heavens and the earth were created on the first day of the six days creation. But it says, "In the beginning,", which was an indefinite time in past--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1-2). Now, what was the condition of the earth during that time and after the creation of the heavens and the earth, and before the six days of other things? The Bible says, "and the earth was without form and void" ( Genesis 1:1-2 ). The Bible does not say how long the earth was in this condition, and if scientists want to make it millions of years, then the Bible is still true. The Bible does not say this earth is only six thousand years old. God created only light, day and night on this first day of the six days creation ( Genesis 1:1-5). The world "created" is from two different Hebrew words. "In the beginning God created (Bahrah) the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1). But in Exodus 20:11 we read that "In six days the Lord made (Ahsah) heaven and earth." The first passage means God originally "created" the heavens and the earth, which afterward remained for some time "without form and void", then the second passage means God "made" or arranged the heavens and the earth, in six days, bringing it out of its void and formless state. Thanks to Does God Exist sermon scripts. On the topic of "Age of the Earth"


Overall, it does NOT matter how old the earth is. All that matters is that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1-2)


EDIT: ADDING MORE BELOW

There is no "Threats" of eternal torture. That is a consequence. Nothing more.

No matter what. God Loves You.

A consequence of what? If you don't pay me with your soul, I'll torture you to the brink of death, reanimate you and repeat for all eternity. Because I love you. *wink wink*

About *Jesus' sacrifice on the cross - why does the demiurge... uh, I mean "god", even need a blood sacrifice? How is that even just or righteous? It's plain evil. I don't need to sacrifice virgins and drink their blood to forgive those who wrong me, and I'm not even perfect! Go figure. (Does this mean that I have a higher moral standard than the demiurge? Hmm. Mmmm.)

Oh, wait, it's just and righteous because the Bible says so. Gotcha. Well, since this thread is about the validity of those texts, as ambiguous as this topic may be, the argument that "the Bible says so" is invalid till we can find a logical reason to believe what this book in particular has to say in regards to life.

*Why do we even call him by his Latin-derived name, anyway? He wasn't Roman, as far as *I* know.

Mister Sandman wrote:@ Liquid: I want to know how exactly you determine the age of the earth using "dates"

it is called mathia. although there are over 200 interpretations of earths age using the bible most agree on the <10,000 years figure. its quite simple. i recall a documentary about a noted scientist in which he calculated the biblical age while a young child. after working the date out he realised it must be wrong (rather sensibly) he turned from stifling religion to logic and reason (rather sensibly).

The Bible does not say the heavens and the earth were created on the first day of the six days creation. But it says, "In the beginning,", which was an indefinite time in past--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1-2). Now, what was the condition of the earth during that time and after the creation of the heavens and the earth, and before the six days of other things? The Bible says, "and the earth was without form and void" ( Genesis 1:1-2 ). The Bible does not say how long the earth was in this condition, and if scientists want to make it millions of years, then the Bible is still true. The Bible does not say this earth is only six thousand years old. God created only light, day and night on this first day of the six days creation ( Genesis 1:1-5). The world "created" is from two different Hebrew words. "In the beginning God created (Bahrah) the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1). But in Exodus 20:11 we read that "In six days the Lord made (Ahsah) heaven and earth." The first passage means God originally "created" the heavens and the earth, which afterward remained for some time "without form and void", then the second passage means God "made" or arranged the heavens and the earth, in six days, bringing it out of its void and formless state. Thanks to Does God Exist sermon scripts. On the topic of "Age of the Earth"

blah blah blah god blah blah blah magic blah blah blah lies blah blah blah harry potter. . .

Overall, it does NOT matter how old the earth is. All that matters is that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1-2)

it matters that you are wrong

EDIT: ADDING MORE BELOW

There is no "Threats" of eternal torture. That is a consequence. Nothing more.

No matter what. God Loves You.

lol bow before me of face unimaginable torment for eternity. what a nice view you lads have of God. so God is sort of like america? america sends ppl to other countries to be tortured. God uses hell for much the same.


theres a certain type of coral which grows one layer every day. by measuring the layers we can see that there are more layers than there would be days in the biblical age. this coral even allows us to determine how long a day was (i think days used to be a fair bit shorter). so we can in fact say with some certainty that the length of a day in the past can be defined accurately. to me that totally discredits your idea of time being undefined (which is only a cheap and dirty lie imo). how will you answer this? let me guess:

Mister Sandman wrote:God

i wonder about people being forced to believe and preach total lies which any reasonable person whould know are false. mental health side effects maybe? or possibly the mental health problems are the reason for the literal biblical belief in the 1st place. who knows? let me guess:

Mister Sandman wrote:God

Link concerning viability of old earth within the context of the Biblical creation.

I shall return later and argue concerning the "If you don't worship Me you'll burn forever" issue. But know this, Hell is not fire and brimstone...Hell is simply eternal separation from God...exactly what all the atheists and non-believers would desire anyways...

Wrong. I'm quite theistic and I desire quite the opposite. When I look at the Bible, I do not see "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". What I desire is "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

Although, I sure don't mind being seperate from that demiurge fellow. He doesn't look like the kind of guy I'd get along with -- although sometimes I can relate to his outbreaks of fury and destruction, but unlike him, I manage to restrain myself.

@Liquid: Read my post again...and read it all, not just skim your missing the point of what the article was saying.

theres a certain type of coral which grows one layer every day. by measuring the layers we can see that there are more layers than there would be days in the biblical age. this coral even allows us to determine how long a day was (i think days used to be a fair bit shorter). so we can in fact say with some certainty that the length of a day in the past can be defined accurately. to me that totally discredits your idea of time being undefined (which is only a cheap and dirty lie imo). how will you answer this? let me guess

1. What is the biblical age? Using mathia is inconsistent. I had a look at all the "mathia" logs in determining the age of the earth.... and I loled. There are Gaps everywhere. Also it doesnt take into account undefined eras of time. In addition when you contextualise the use of the words of father, brother ect.. the usage of the words are differentc.

2. Time is undefined. You cant understand it more than you can understand God.

3. Read my previous post FULLY.

i wonder about people being forced to believe and preach total lies which any reasonable person whould know are false.

1. Im not being forced to believe anything. I have total free will.
2. Your still yet to disprove the Biblical teachings.


FOr futher insite look at Tades link

Or this link

2. Time is undefined. You cant understand it more than you can understand God.

Time is a component of a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time elapses at different rates relative to different observers in motion relative to one another.

2. Your still yet to disprove the Biblical teachings.

Their are historical inaccuracies in both the old and new testament. So if your saying that the bible is an accurate historical book then what you say is wrong. But if your just suggesting that it's teachings can't be proven wrong... no you can't disprove faith. But, that kinda of closes off the discussion doesn't it?

Thriller wrote:

2. Time is undefined. You cant understand it more than you can understand God.

Time is a component of a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time elapses at different rates relative to different observers in motion relative to one another.

So how long is time Thriller? I think you took his statement out of context.

Thriller wrote:Their are historical inaccuracies in both the old and new testament.

Link me plz.

Some examples of biblical statements contradicting known history:

Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.

Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.

Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius, the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.

Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.

Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in
586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.

Just for you nemesis.

Thriller wrote:
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.

It's true that Balshazzar was not the true "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, but the Hebrew word for "son" can refer to any kind of descendent or heir, meaning that even if he wasn't directly related, he could still be called Nebuchadnezzar's "son". However, Herodotus suggests that Nebuchadnezzar's wife, Nitorcris, was the mother of Nabu-naido's wife, making her the maternal grandmother of Belshazzar, thus making Nebuchadnezzar the step-grandfather of Balshazzar. Just as Jesus was the "son of Abraham", though actually a distant relative, this would make Belshazzar the "son of Nebuchadnezzar".

As for his not being a king, you are a little behind on you research. Xenophon wrote of the fall of Babylon, and said that Nabodinus (aka Nabu-Naido) was in custody at the time, and that the current king was slain. While he didn't name the king, there's little doubt he was referring to Balshazzar, since he was Nabu's son. And besides that, the critic argues that Balshazzar was a "crown prince", right? The Hebrews didn't have such a word, and the nearest functional word to such a title is essentially the same as "king".




Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.


There are many Biblical characters that critics argue "never existed" until the evidence is found that they did (they used to argue that Balshazzar never existed.)

Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius, the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.

The historical evidence in this area is a bit weak, but what we have suggests that Darius was an alternate name for Gubaru (a Babylonian governor) or for Cyrus of Persia himself. The original wording of Daniel 6:28 seems to suggest that Darius and Cyrus are the same person.

Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.


Two Reasons. One is that the king had more than one wife (polygamy was common at the time, and is even suggested of the king in Esther 2:14-17). The other is that "Vashti" was actually a title given to Amestris, meaning "the best" or "sweetheart".


Above answers from here.


Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in
586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.

Have A Look Here

Scholars, historians and archaeologists, secular and religious alike, have missed singular truth because they, like Nebuchadnezzar, have been given over to a form of insanity -- the inability to recognise and understand historical truths as revealed in scripture -- due to pride and vanity in their own human accomplishments and supposed erudition!

Overall Thiller you need to start getting some real evidence together.

Good post Mister Sandman.

Thriller wrote:Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.

See here and section 8 here.

Wikipedia wrote:Biblical records, corroborated by Assyrian ones, describe how Tiglath-Pileser III exacted 1000 talents of silver tribute from King Menahem of Israel (2 Kings 15:19) and defeated his successor Pekah (15:29). Pekah had allied with Rezin, king of the Arameans against Ahaz (known to the Assyrians as Yahu-khazi), king of Judah, who responded by appealing for the Assyrian monarch's help with the Temple gold and silver. Tiglath-Pileser complied by seizing Damascus, executing Rezin, and deporting the Aramaean inhabitants to Kir (16:9). He also seized the northern half of Israel, and deported the Reubenites, Gadites, and Manasseh to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the Gozan river (1 Chron. 5:26). Beyond this, the alliance was not beneficial to Ahaz. (2 Chron 28:20).

Scholars, historians and archaeologists, secular and religious alike, have missed singular truth because they, like Nebuchadnezzar, have been given over to a form of insanity -- the inability to recognise and understand historical truths as revealed in scripture -- due to pride and vanity in their own human accomplishments and supposed erudition!

Overall Thiller you need to start getting some real evidence together.]

Yes, historians and archeologists have got it all wrong and miss translated the bible and the contexts about which it speaks...... . The only evidence you gave was hearsay and conjecture, no solid proof. I gave contemporary analysis of the understanding of history as it is today. SO take your pseudo historical analysis and pseudo scientific ideas and go put your tinfoil hat on and sit in the corner please. Grown people are talking.

Honestly, you are giving weight to smoke.

@nemesis
The only time i ever here you congratulate anyone on their posts is when they agree with your POV. My guess is you only like to be told your right and have never researched a counter viewpoint to anything.

That's why it's healthy to argue with yourself.

Anyone who tells you that men in white suits will come for you if you do that is just trying to keep you ignorant and should be dispatched of immediately. No exceptions.

I personally keep a dungeon handy at all times. It reminds me of how well the Spanish Inquisition could show God's love.

Agapooka wrote:That's why it's healthy to argue with yourself.

Anyone who tells you that men in white suits will come for you if you do that is just trying to keep you ignorant and should be dispatched of immediately. No exceptions.

I personally keep a dungeon handy at all times. It reminds me of how well the Spanish Inquisition could show God's love.

nobody expects the Spanish inquisition