[Guest]

Any person can comment on this post, but it's geared towards Christians (Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.) Anyone can post the first subject of conversation. Just discuss issues about the religion (Heaven, evangelism,etc.)

[Guest]

We are not to measure biblical years in different terms than our current method of 365 days to a year. Yes the Patriarchs of the Old Testament really did live as long as the Bible states. How do we explain this?

Some so called "scholars" claim that the ancient calendar made the year a month, or one lunar period. Others assert that a year equals one growing season of three or four months. One group says that a year in the bible was actually three months from Adam till Abraham, eight months till Joseph's time, and twelve months thereafter. None of these "scholars" give any scriptural evidence for their preposterous conclusions.

Let me illustrate. If we accept the idea that one year actually equaled one month in our time, we have Enoch at five years old when his son Methuselah was born! The age of all the patriarch at the birth of their children would be equally preposterous.

This being true, how do we explain the long life-spans of the Patriarchs? One explanation might be the dramatically different world that the Patriarchs lived in. Before the flood the Bible indicates that there had been no rain. Many believe there was a "water-vapour" canopy surrounding the earth, giving greater protection from the sun's radiation, and creating a sub-tropical environment all around the world. This would account for the fossil record which indicates sub-tropical vegetation all over the earth at some time in earth's past. In such a moist atmosphere growth would have been greatly stimulated (for both man and animals), the oxygen content could have been much higher than present day conditions, man could have been stronger with greater endurance tending to longevity.

This all seems to explain why there is a steady progression of declining ages of men as their distance from the Creation increases. Adam lived 930 years, his son Seth lived 912 years. Lamech was his son, he lived 777 years. Noah was his son, he lived 950 years. Shem was his son, he lived 600 years. Shem's son (Arphaxad) lived 438 years. Arphaxad's son Salah lived 403 years. Jump a few generations to Abraham, he lived 175 years. Skip a few more generations to Moses, he lived 120 years. His age brings us down to the age some people live in our own time. There is a woman living in France today that is 126!

Why the decline in ages? Probably the change in the environment from the beginning to Moses day. There is no reason to believe that there should be a different way of counting Old Testament years.

[Quag]

Ok so you admit your life expectancies come from the bible. this is not proof. If you can do no better than that then I am sorry you will never convince anyone but those already converted. This is the difference between science and faith. Science seeks to prove, faith denies the need for proof. why you may ask the difference well it seems obvious to me there is now way to prove anything with faith. Like i said every single piece of scientific evedince states that in general human lifespan has been increasing. THIS IS A FACT NOT A STORY WRITTEN IN A BOOK TRANSLATED SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE MILLENIA. There is even more historical proof of this as well. If you insist on stating that the bible says so and so live X years and this is proof that people lived longer than you just hurt you own arguments.

EDIT: I explain the long lives of the patriarchs by stating most emphatically that they are an exageration.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Quag

[Guest]

Lol, they didn't have fire arms, they didn't have pollutants, they didn't have vehicles, they didn't have modified foods, I'm sorry to tell you that they did live longer and you need to tell your source that they need to re-evaluate their thinking.

But they did have swords and arrows and spears. They did have germs and disease and no sanitation. The vast majority of people lived in squalor and died at 40 if they were lucky (assuming of course that living in such conditions for 40 years could be considered lucky... ). Most of our history of the world is Romanticized. We hear the stories of the aristocracy because they had the power and education to chronicle their lives. Those who had nothing when they were alive left the world with nothing and no one has ever heard of them as a consequence.

The rich and those of the nobility lived longer than the masses largely because they were able to stay out of the filth in which the rest of the populace was forced to live. Additionally, the scribes of the world were employed by those same nobles, so they wrote about the nobles and not about the people. What we do know about the commoners is very limited and mostly drawn from archaeology. You want Quag to examine his source, but I am curious to know what source you cite for your information.

Actually, it occurs to me that they would have had some sanitation, but that was largely because of the Romans at that point in history, not the natives of the region. I recall that largely because of that great culturally historical film, "Monty Python's The Life of Brian."

Reg: [The Romans have] bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.

Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: Yes.

Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?

Xerxes: The aqueduct.

Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.

Masked Activist: And the sanitation!

Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.

Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...

Matthias: And the roads...

Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...

Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...

Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...

Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...

Activist Near Front: And the wine...

Omnes: Oh yes! True!

Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.

Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!

Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.

Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

(more general murmurs of agreement)

Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

Xerxes: Brought peace!

The quote is barely germane to the argument at hand, but the point is that there's not a lot of reliable evidence regarding how people lived in the ancient world. Other things would have killed people too. If you broke your leg, they didn't know how to set the bone. You would probably die, especially if you were the breadwinner of the home. If you did survive, you would be crippled and die younger because you couldn't provide as well. Even 100 years ago, things like Measles and Mumps killed 1000s of people in the Western world. In places where they still don't have the vaccines, they still do kill, but in America, most of that has gone away. Pneumonia, Tuberculosis (The Consumption) and other illnesses were death sentences in olden times. Now people can survive pneumonia and manage TB. All of these things and more are contributing factors to life expectancy.

Socrates has been quoted as saying, "I know that I know nothing," which has been generalized to mean "The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing." This means that you admit that you cannot know the truth with 100% confidence. You have to be willing to admit that you could be wrong about something. To be truly wise, you have to continue to seek knowledge to affirm or deny your beliefs. If you admit to knowing nothing, then you have no preconceived notions and you are able to judge every new piece of data with an open mind. You can modify your world view as you get new data, so as to have the best possible interpretation of the world that you can find. All that we're asking is that you look at sources outside your box and see what other people say.

The "Water Shield" theory is purely apologist material. There is no data that backs up such assertions and they still can't account for why there are fossilized seashells found in the Andes mountains in South America. Sea shells are not sub-tropical, they're sub-marine! I do hope that you've at least heard of Continental Drift. The Earth's crust is not a solid mass. It consists of tectonic plates that are constantly shoving against each other and moving around. They cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The Atlantic Rift is a split between two plates that is pushing America away from Europe and Africa slowly over millions of years. Look at the shape of South America and compare it to the bight in Africa's west side. They line up pretty nicely if you were to put them together. Africa once connected to South America and North America was probably attached to Europe millions of years ago. Of course, nothing would look the way it is now, so it would be hard to identify Europe and the Americas as they exist today, but that's the way it was.

The Greeks had a similar story in their creation myths. There was a Golden Age when man lived in harmony with the gods and lived for 100s of years. Then, in the Silver Age, man didn't live as long, but they were stilled favored by the gods. Finally, in the Copper Age, Man fell out of grace with the gods and live as long as they do today. The idea of a "Golden Age" when everything was better some time in the distant past has been a theme in most every creation myth ever created. It is not evidence that it was ever true though. All archaeological evidence we have uncovered of the earliest civilizations implies the opposite, as Quag as said.

[Quag]

Well I'm gonna try 1 more time

Please look up human life expectancy by country/region or even GDP

Amazing thing is that the countries, where most people are living in a very similar way to the way people did thousands of years ago, have by far the shortest life expectancy. By you're own logic (pollution, vehicules modified foods) all things these people don't have, they should have the longest life expectancies of all. Hmm i wonder why they don't could it be that way way back then they actually had shorter life expectancies?? nah the bible says different therefore the data must be wrong. Sorry for sounding a bit sarcastic but really when the proof that what you are saying is slapping you in the face and you stand there grinning pretending that it is just a sumemr breeze, there is somthing really really wrong!

[Quag]

LOL life of Brian. Love that movie lent it once to a devout christian friend of mine once, he didn't find it funny for some reason... very strange, maybe it is because he is french and the french have a different sense of humor.

Dawh thank you for the erudite support

[gvg]

brandon, you really need to stop. Let me just explain something:

THE BIBLE IS EPIC BULL****

Seriously. Did you not read anything I wrote? Open up a history book. A science book. How did you do in either of those subjects if all you can say is "Nope, not in the bible..."???

The Babylonians had a creation myth. They had a flood story. So did every frickin' civ. that lived near a river.

Those that didn't???? Huh... No flood story!!!!! You really need to stop listening to a bunch of apologetic bull crap. There's a reason science is growing and religion is falling. It's called EVIDENCE! It's called EXPERIMENTATION! Sorry buddy, but religion didn't bring us cures, nor advancements in technology, nor knowledge... that was all science!

You know what, I'll humour you. Instead of factual debate (you are entitled to your own opinion, but NOT to your own facts) let's get into a logical one.

Let's start with this:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to

Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing

Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing

Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing

Then why call Him God?

That's called the riddle of Epicurus. How can you fight this? There no way.

Another:

Let's pretend for a moment that the devil is real. Now, he is the force for all human corruption and evil, correct?

Wrong. Actually, that's a bunch of modern christian scare tactics. Really, in the actual bible, he is the accuser. And what does the accuser do? He asks all the tough questions of god. And how does good old man-in-the-sky answer??????

"I am the lord." That's it. No matter what he asked. How he turned out to be the modern figure he is today is besides the point. "I am the lord"??? Really? That's all god could come up with?

Now let's assume he is the modern Christian version. WHY DOESN'T GOD SMITE HIS LITTLE A**? If god is so powerful, why can't he get rid of him? Or is god really not powerful enough to do that? But.. that would mean he isn't omnipotent... which isn't what the bible says...

i could go on all day. the point is, you have to look. Your own religion contradicts itself! Christianity split so many different times (and Luther probably had the best reason to) because of so many different things: Does god belong to the select few or the masses? Icons or no Icons? Is Christ a god or not? etc. And then they went and killed each other!!!!!

It's ridiculous. Open up man! IT'S SO FRICKIN OBVIOUS!

[Quag]

GVG:

calm down man have a beer relax

I know its like showing a lake to someone and then having them stand in the water with fish swimming around their feet, and then they still say nope we're in the middle of a desert.

Brandonyy4u:

How about i call you B4, is faster.

Do you take the bible litterally and believe the world is 6k years old?

[Guest]

Brandonyy4u:

How about i call you B4, is faster.

Do you take the bible litterally and believe the world is 6k years old?

According to Wikipedia, that is the standard view of Seventh-Day Adventists. Considering he already said he doesn't believe in dinosaurs, I think you already know most of that answer. That would suggest another line of questioning a la gvg: Why do fossils exist for creatures that never existed? What purpose could God have for creating evidence of false things?

[Quag]

Dawh i am going somewhere with this I just want to be 100% certain of B4's beliefs first.

B4 tends to respond to only a portion of my arguements, Nothing against you B4. I only respond to a portion of yours at times as well, it is the nature of these discussions. As i want to make this clear and not leave any part behind i'll keep it short and try and do this is stages.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Quag

[Guest]

Honestly, i can say no there were no dinosaurs on the Ark, and no i don't believe that dinosaurs ever existed.

Do you think that George Washington really existed?

[gvg]

GVG:

calm down man have a beer relax

I know its like showing a lake to someone and then having them stand in the water with fish swimming around their feet, and then they still say nope we're in the middle of a desert.

Brandonyy4u:

How about i call you B4, is faster.

Do you take the bible litterally and believe the world is 6k years old?

I'm sorry =) Got a little carried away. i had just read some news about Wisconsin (their senate went ahead and passed the bill that got rid of the bargaining rights) and I was pissed, and then I arrived here and saw this...

I do apologize, Brandon, if I have offended.

Oh, and for the record... I'm a teensy bit too young to have a beer, so... =)

[Quag]

Try root beer

[gvg]

That outta work =)

[Guest]

Honestly, i can say no there were no dinosaurs on the Ark, and no i don't believe that dinosaurs ever existed.

No...seriously?!

So all those fossils and stuff, dated my multiple means, all in agreement...what are they then?

Funny that you reject the evidence of reality, but accept without any evidence whatsoever, anything written in your precious book of fables. Again that double standard raises its ugly head.

I might sound wacko but it is the truth.

With out religion without God we would be nothing, we wouldn't exist.

Evidence required.

OK, how old does the human race normally live to? I'd say 80's to early 90's so 70 years after is nothing.

Rubbish. Such (literally) extraordinary and miraculous events, in a time when a fair number of well known and respected historians were around, and NO ONE bothered to talk of them until decades later?!

What if I wrote a story about something, say a Alien vessel visitation, that I say happened in the 1980s, would you believe it? Wold you wonder why no one had mentioned it for 30 years?!

Back 1000 years ago people were living longer and were healthier than we are now, (It's a proven fact)

No it isn't a proven fact. I think the word you are looking for is "lie."

Peter (one of Jesus disciples) started the Bible when he was imprisoned. He would know all about God because he followed him everywhere.

Or so it is claimed. Evidence? Even though it would only be evidence of the story, not the truth of that story.

And to the translation of the Bible. The Hebrew language in which the Bible was started is still spoken today.

Um, so?

Only the Tanakh was in Hebrew anyway. The Christain texts were all in Greek.

[Guest]

But it would, if i told you to be perfect for the rest of your life and you couldn't mess up would you be perfect?

Your question makes no sense.

Your missing the point, the point of God creating us is so he can be with us in Heaven. It shows companionship.

No, it shows a desperate need for attention, a sycophant's desire to be worshipped.

Which displays a lack of perfection. A being that was truly perfect would need and want for nothing. That includes companionship or to be worshipped.

Scars are what we did to him of course scars aren't perfect, because we aren't perfect and we did it to him.

Sorry brandonyy4u, but I didn't do anything to your imaginary friend, and neither did you.

But he was capable and he did forgive them, With his dying breath he said. "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

That is one of the stories of his last words. They couldn't even get that right.

And by "he" do you mean God or his son? Or is God his own son...It makes no freakin' sense! And he didn't die did he? He took a nap for a day and a half then became god (or something.) Some sacrifice.

In another of those versions he cried out asking why God has forsaken him. (How he could have thought that he had forsaken himself I have no clue.)

And your wrong he did die but not for long he rose again to give us hope.

Then that isn't a real death is it? Especially if he was also being god at the time.

And the "hope" stuff is just utter nonsense. Really, there is no sense to be found in that central-to-your-cult religion anywhere.

I've never heard it that way, the only way I've heard it is: You pick the most perfect sheep in your flock and you sacrifice it on an alter. If God accepts and see's that you are really truly want to be sinless he sends fire from heaven and consumes the offering.

The sacrifice to the gods thing (because according to your holy book God likes the smell of burnt flesh) is an entirely different thing than scapegoating.

Oh, and what you heard is a story, while what I said is history.

The Crucifixion story of course is a mix of both; a gruesome human sacrifice, and using him as a scape goat (the rubbish about him taking away our sins, whatever that means.)

God has allowed us to no longer have to give our sins to him in that way.

Why did we EVER have to do that? Because God demanded it? Well yes he did, that much is clear in the Tanakh. Why? That's sick.

And again the story makes no sense. God could have just said "Okay guys no more sacrificing animals or people any more, enough with the pointless killing already." There was no need, and no point in demanding that "If you just kill this one guy for me (who happens to be completely innocent etc.) then I will let you off having to do it any more." NO, that's just daft, insane even!

We can easily kneel and pray and ask God for forgiveness and ask him to pardon our sins

But why should we? What difference would it possible make? Except making you feel better? Which luckily for you doesn't even require your god being real or anything.

No, I don't do it with any other books, because Gods word is law, and that book, the only thing that keeps this planet on its feet, that book that gives hope to everyone, gives life to you and to me, that brings this conversation together, is all about God and the victory he has won for you and me.

Double standard noted. I hope at least that your ability to reason only shuts down in that one case at least.

[Guest]

Yes it could, but I'm willing to die for what I believe in. And if what i believe is true I pity those who have not accepted God into their lives. If its not true I'm glad that i lived my life believing in something.

I guess some of us just care more if what we believe is actually true.

Some of us want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

Personally I 'believe' (in the broadest sense) a lot of things. I am not however dogmatically closed minded about anything. And do not place more importance in belief that I do in rational thought. In other words I do not believe on should dogmatically believe X, no matter what the evidence may show, where that is precisely what you appear to be doing.

It is known as the "belief in belief" where one thinks it more important (or of the only importance) to believe the tenets of your religion, than to consider their actual truth value. I have even heard people say that even if it was proven tomorrow that their religion was entirely false, they would still believe because they have Faith! (Demonstrating that for them that belief is more important to them than truth or reality!)

[Guest]

But we haven't changed since the beginning. We as Christian think the Big Bang theory is a sorry excuse that someone came up with.

Except all those Christians that don't, of course.

You got it, religion, Christianity are the only place that you can find Salvation. You are lost with out.

What is salvation? Salvation from what? and why would I want it?

_________________

Lol, they didn't have fire arms, they didn't have pollutants, they didn't have vehicles, they didn't have modified foods,

Or modern medicine, or sanitation...

And those oh so evil modified foods...like that strain of wheat (I think it was) that that one guy developed, responsible for the saving (officially recorded) of at least a Billion lives (That's 1,000,000,000+ lives brandonyy4u!)

For much of recorded history, even though there were some that lived into their eighties and beyond, the average life expectancy could be counted as only 3 or four decades if you were lucky.

I'm sorry to tell you that they did live longer and you need to tell your source that they need to re-evaluate their thinking.

Our "Source" is recorded history, and the evidence found in observable reality. What have you got to trump that? A book of stories?

Well I'm sorry that you can't see something that is right in front of you.

Stop telling people that the evidence is right there. IF it exists then present it, show it to us. Otherwise you are just being dishonest.

________________________

People have been studying time since time began.

If time began at all, it was long before people even existed. Although I understand that you don't believe that as for you (as for others like Henry Morris); "If Reality and the Bible differ then reality is wrong!"

Moon phases position of the stars these all have been documented and made into scientific calenders to provide the public records of time and date, since the beginning till the end.

Not since the beginning, no.

[Guest]

We are not to measure biblical years in different terms than our current method of 365 days to a year. Yes the Patriarchs of the Old Testament really did live as long as the Bible states. How do we explain this?

No point in explaining it until you first establish that it was true. And no "It says so in the Bible" does not even begin to do that.

Some so called "scholars" claim that the ancient calendar made the year a month, or one lunar period. Others assert that a year equals one growing season of three or four months. One group says that a year in the bible was actually three months from Adam till Abraham, eight months till Joseph's time, and twelve months thereafter. None of these "scholars" give any scriptural evidence for their preposterous conclusions.

Preposterous indeed.

And "scriptural evidence" would do no better. What is needed is REAL evidence.

This being true, how do we explain the long life-spans of the Patriarchs?

Once again you just assume that these "Patriarchs" even existed.

What are you trying to prove? That if we assume that the Bible is true then we can prove that the Bible is true (based on that assumption)?!

Before the flood the Bible indicates that there had been no rain.

The flood never happened.

IF you say it did, then Reality disagrees with you, sorry.

In such a moist atmosphere growth would have been greatly stimulated (for both man and animals), the oxygen content could have been much higher than present day conditions, man could have been stronger with greater endurance tending to longevity.

Isn't it fun to argue like that? As long as you assume that your audience is equally scientifically illiterate as you are of course.

This all seems to explain why there is a steady progression of declining ages of men as their distance from the Creation increases. Adam lived 930 years, his son Seth lived 912 years. Lamech was his son, he lived 777 years. Noah was his son, he lived 950 years. Shem was his son, he lived 600 years. Shem's son (Arphaxad) lived 438 years. Arphaxad's son Salah lived 403 years. Jump a few generations to Abraham, he lived 175 years. Skip a few more generations to Moses, he lived 120 years. His age brings us down to the age some people live in our own time. There is a woman living in France today that is 126!

Reality disagrees with you sir.

[Guest]

Honestly, i can say no there were no dinosaurs on the Ark, and no i don't believe that dinosaurs ever existed.

Bugrit! Missed this bit:

Actually no brandonyy4u, you can't honestly say that there were no dinosaurs on the Ark, only that you don't think/believe there were any.

and come to think of it; I agree with you (but obviously for very different reasons that yours. )

[Guest]

Actually, ADParker, you didn't miss brandonyy4u's no-dinosaurs statement. It was the first thing you quoted an hour previously.

I partially admire your persistence trying to reach such a brainwashed person's common sense and partially think it's a waste of your time. There are probably better discussions to take part in with larger audiences to learn from your criticisms. Then again, I do the same thing. I get into a "debate" with someone and then after a while wonder why I'm wasting my time debating with them. Aren't there better things I could be doing?

[Guest]

Actually, ADParker, you didn't miss brandonyy4u's no-dinosaurs statement. It was the first thing you quoted an hour previously.

True. I failed to state that clearly enough. What I missed was that point I made, not the statement from brandonyy4u itself.

Thanks for bringing it up.

I partially admire your persistence trying to reach such a brainwashed person's common sense and partially think it's a waste of your time. There are probably better discussions to take part in with larger audiences to learn from your criticisms. Then again, I do the same thing. I get into a "debate" with someone and then after a while wonder why I'm wasting my time debating with them. Aren't there better things I could be doing?

Couldn't agree more. This is actually far from my main forum of discussion - of course I generally come up against the same kind of closed-mindedness there as well!

And as many of us have said there, many times; We don't do it solely for their (our current opponent's) benefit, but more for those that may well be swayed by their arguments. And on (very rare) occasion I have actually seen it reported that someone did find what was said by such an individual convincing until they read on down to the rebuttals from myself and others. And that is what it is all about. (And I have even seen an initially dogmatic individual or two turn completely around based on such arguments! Some dropping their religion, some not, but becoming more open minded and more of a critical thinker all round.)

[peace*out]

ahhhh...

yet another amazing video...

this is about christianity in a sense, its not highly discussional, but it is something that i enjoyed...

[gvg]

That was pretty good, actually =)

And he did bring up good points throughout it all.

Does he have any other videos?

[peace*out]

That was pretty good, actually =)

And he did bring up good points throughout it all.

Does he have any other videos?

http://www.youtube.com/boburnham

http://www.youtube.com/mahnrubob#p/u

As far as i can tell, he doesnt have any christianity videos on those channels, but i wouldnt be suprised if someone found more.

be prepared: he can be offensive, and...extremely inappropriate.

Theres one other of his songs i found, however, i dont think this is really...good. Warning: it...may be offensive.

but here you go:

[Quag]

That was pretty funny

if you want funny videos try this one

sorry at work i can only give you the link

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x31vpq_rowan-atkinson-in-hell-with-subtitl_fun