Christian Discussion Thread V

[Tmutarakhan]

Zeus not existing is a fairly foundational doctrine of Christianity(monotheism).

There's a marked difference between God-inspired doctrine and mere mythology of an ancient civilization.

In both cases all we have are stories told by humans who CLAIM to know something about gods.

[Gim]

There's a marked difference between God-inspired doctrine and mere mythology of an ancient civilization.

In both cases all we have are stories told by humans who CLAIM to know something about gods.

Um...no. The Scripture is God-inspired.

[Diopolis]

I would not call Rome ancient. Egypt otoh - well, they had a civilisation millenia before God even created the earth (according to the date proposed by young earth creationists)

Christians aren't necessarily creationists. Also, how can you be so sure God created the Earth after the Romans existed?

Because such a thing runs contrary to Christian doctrine and established historical fact.

[Gim]

Christians aren't necessarily creationists. Also, how can you be so sure God created the Earth after the Romans existed?

Because such a thing runs contrary to Christian doctrine and established historical fact.

What runs contrary to Christian doctrine and what is the historical fact you're trying to discuss here?

[Tmutarakhan]

That passage is generally misinterpreted. Thomas does not use the vocative form "O my Lord! O my God!" which is the form if he were *addressing* Jesus as God; he is simply *exclaiming* "My God!" in amazement that Jesus is alive. Since our language lacks this distinction, it is easy to fall into this misunderstanding

What are you talking about? The verse in question (John 20:28) says, in the original:

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμας καὶ ειπεν αὐτω, Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

The underlined is literally "O my Lord and O my God." Absolutely word for word.

NO. "O Lord" (vocative, meaning that the Lord is the person being addressed is kyrie not kyrios (which is nominative, meaning that the Lord is the subject of the sentence or sentence fragment) and "O God" similarly is thee not theos. In Hebrew the usual solemn exclamation of praise on observing a wonder would be Adonay Eloheynu "My Lord our God" (not, obviously, meaning that whoever else happens to be present when you say this is the Lord God) and this appears to be a variant of that exclamation.

[Tmutarakhan]

In both cases all we have are stories told by humans who CLAIM to know something about gods.

Um...no. The Scripture is God-inspired.

Humans say so. Those humans may or may not know anything more about God than anyone else.

[Gim]

Um...no. The Scripture is God-inspired.

Humans say so. Those humans may or may not know anything more about God than anyone else.

Humans don't know much about God, but God does keep telling them what is righteous and what is not.
Well, there is actually biblical evidence for this: 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[Diopolis]

Because such a thing runs contrary to Christian doctrine and established historical fact.

What runs contrary to Christian doctrine and what is the historical fact you're trying to discuss here?

Your idea of God creating the earth after the Romans existed ignores 1) Christian doctrine which places the earth as no younger than 6000 years old(usually much older) and 2) the historical fact that the earth existed before the Romans.

[Gim]

What runs contrary to Christian doctrine and what is the historical fact you're trying to discuss here?

Your idea of God creating the earth after the Romans existed ignores 1) Christian doctrine which places the earth as no younger than 6000 years old(usually much older) and 2) the historical fact that the earth existed before the Romans.

1) You cannot take the Bible literally in the sense that each day is worth a thousand years, and it took seven days to create the world.
2) Yes, historical fact, as written in the Scriptures, as well as the Mesopotamians.

[Diopolis]

Your idea of God creating the earth after the Romans existed ignores 1) Christian doctrine which places the earth as no younger than 6000 years old(usually much older) and 2) the historical fact that the earth existed before the Romans.

1) You cannot take the Bible literally in the sense that each day is worth a thousand years, and it took seven days to create the world.
2) Yes, historical fact, as written in the Scriptures, as well as the Mesopotamians.

1) that wasn't what I was getting at. I was saying that the bible claims that the earth is at least six thousand years old, because that's roughly the amount of time covered by genesis, excluding the creation story.
2) yes, historical fact including the mesopotamians, romans themselves, and archeological data shows that the earth is older than the roman empire.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I would not call Rome ancient. Egypt otoh - well, they had a civilisation millenia before God even created the earth (according to the date proposed by young earth creationists)

Christians aren't necessarily creationists. Also, how can you be so sure God created the Earth after the Romans existed?

Depends on your definition of "creationist"

Creationism is in the broadest sense the belief God created the Universe/Earth, regardless of when it happened. In that sense Christians are very much Creationists.

Now, if you mean to say YEC then no, not everyone is.

[Gim]

1) that wasn't what I was getting at. I was saying that the bible claims that the earth is at least six thousand years old, because that's roughly the amount of time covered by genesis, excluding the creation story.
2) yes, historical fact including the mesopotamians, romans themselves, and archeological data shows that the earth is older than the roman empire.

1) How do you know it is six thousand years old? Where does that even say in the Bible?
2) Yeah, and God created Earth, so Romans do not exist before the time of creation.

[Diopolis]

1) that wasn't what I was getting at. I was saying that the bible claims that the earth is at least six thousand years old, because that's roughly the amount of time covered by genesis, excluding the creation story.
2) yes, historical fact including the mesopotamians, romans themselves, and archeological data shows that the earth is older than the roman empire.

1) How do you know it is six thousand years old? Where does that even say in the Bible?
2) Yeah, and God created Earth, so Romans do not exist before the time of creation.

1) Genesis covers about six thousand years based on the ages of the patriarchs in the genealogies. Therefore, the earth could not have been created less than six thousand years ago.
2) that's exactly my point

[Gim]

1) Genesis covers about six thousand years based on the ages of the patriarchs in the genealogies. Therefore, the earth could not have been created less than six thousand years ago.
2) that's exactly my point

1) Again, where does it say that?
2) Good to see we are in agreement.

[The Archregimancy]

There's a marked difference between God-inspired doctrine and mere mythology of an ancient civilization.

I would not call Rome ancient. Egypt otoh - well, they had a civilisation millenia before God even created the earth (according to the date proposed by young earth creationists)

Not entirely accurate; though my noting as much isn't remotely a defence of YACs.

YACs generally hold that the Earth was created 6-10,000 years ago; with the low end date generally c.4000 BC.

Narmer, first pharaoh of the First Dynasty, is a little tricky to date, but is generally thought to date to around the 31st century BC (give or take a couple of centuries) - so even a YAC would hold that the planet was a few centuries old before Egyptian civilisation emerges into history.

Even if you stretch the definition of 'civilisation' to include the predynastic protohistoric Naqada III period, with the first evidence of the use of hieroglyphs and the initial emergence of other recognisably Egyptian cultural traits within the earliest Nile states, you're still only going back to c.3300 BC - which still gives even the most rabid YAC over 500 years to work with before the emergence of Egyptian civilisation.

Mesopotamia would present more of a challenge since the earliest recognisable urban settlements emerge in the Ubaid period, with settlement at Eridu dating from c. 5400 BC, and with the population reaching up to 5000 residents (acknowledging precise estimates are tricky) centuries before the emergence of Sumerian literacy.

[Uxupox]

1) How do you know it is six thousand years old? Where does that even say in the Bible?
2) Yeah, and God created Earth, so Romans do not exist before the time of creation.

1) Genesis covers about six thousand years based on the ages of the patriarchs in the genealogies. Therefore, the earth could not have been created less than six thousand years ago.
2) that's exactly my point

Your number #1 point is no where mentioned in the Bible. In fact the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old came from a theologian ( I don't remember who was it exactly, I know it was either a Catholic or Protestant theologian) in which he took a literal interpretation of the Bible and started counting the dates between the long lapses in each segment.

[Gim]

1) Genesis covers about six thousand years based on the ages of the patriarchs in the genealogies. Therefore, the earth could not have been created less than six thousand years ago.
2) that's exactly my point

Your number #1 point is no where mentioned in the Bible. In fact the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old came from a theologian ( I don't remember who was it exactly, I know it was either a Catholic or Protestant theologian).

Thank you.

[Grand Calvert]

1) Genesis covers about six thousand years based on the ages of the patriarchs in the genealogies. Therefore, the earth could not have been created less than six thousand years ago.
2) that's exactly my point

Your number #1 point is no where mentioned in the Bible. In fact the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old came from a theologian ( I don't remember who was it exactly, I know it was either a Catholic or Protestant theologian) in which he took a literal interpretation of the Bible and started counting the dates between the long lapses in each segment.

It was the Irish Archbishop named James Ussher in the 1600's.

[Gim]

Your number #1 point is no where mentioned in the Bible. In fact the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old came from a theologian ( I don't remember who was it exactly, I know it was either a Catholic or Protestant theologian) in which he took a literal interpretation of the Bible and started counting the dates between the long lapses in each segment.

It was the Irish Archbishop named James Ussher in the 1600's.

With what evidence?

[The Flutterlands]

It was the Irish Archbishop named James Ussher in the 1600's.

With what evidence?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

[Diopolis]

It was the Irish Archbishop named James Ussher in the 1600's.

With what evidence?

The ages the bible gives for the patriarchs.

[Gim]

With what evidence?

The ages the bible gives for the patriarchs.

What is the source and what does Ussher say?

[Grand Calvert]

The ages the bible gives for the patriarchs.

What is the source and what does Ussher say?

He just looked at all the "so-and-so begat so-and-so" and added all the dates.

[Gim]

What is the source and what does Ussher say?

He just looked at all the "so-and-so begat so-and-so" and added all the dates.

So, he took the Bible literally?

[Grand Calvert]

He just looked at all the "so-and-so begat so-and-so" and added all the dates.

So, he took the Bible literally?

Yes.