Adam and 4000 BC

Sorry Forests...just being a bit of a smart-ass there, I'm afraid.

I suppose by your definition, Jesus was a Christian. He apparently believed he was the Messiah and believed in himself and his teachings.

 

Twice for emphasis?

Anyway, no, I don't agree with the Flat Earth Society. I agree with the Bible that says the earth is round and hung on nothing.

Yes, I am saying that "practically all of the dates accepted by paleontologists and archaeologists for these eras are "guesstimates" off by millennia, and that they arrived at the dates arbitrarily by assuming evolution to be true". Although I wouldn't say they do it "arbitrarily".

There is no way to accurately date anything beyond recorded history and so any dating method that does is flawed and is subject to the prejudices of the the person doing the dating.

 

Paleontologists deal with two types of dating, absolute and relative.

Absolute dating, which estimates the age of a rock or fossil in years, is most usually done by measuring the amounts of a radioactive isotope and its decay product; since isotope decay rates are known to be constant, the age can be calculated from the relative amounts of parent isotope to daughter product. Fossils up to about 40,000 years old can be dated using carbon-14 if there is enough organic matter present. Older rocks can be dated using potassium-40, which decays to argon-40, or uranium-235, which decays to lead-207. However, many sedimentary rocks cannot be dated directly by these methods; dates usually are obtained from igneous rocks within a sedimentary sequence, such as lava flows or ash beds. Such dates are maximum age estimates for fossils above the dated beds, or minimum estimates for fossils below the beds.

Relative dating has been practiced for nearly 200 years, arising from the observation that different layers of sedimentary rock contain different fossils, and that this sequence can be recognized in other rocks at other localities, even those far away. This allows fossil-bearing rocks to be dated relatively; on the basis of its fossils a rock might be placed in, say, the Ordovician Period, which followed the Cambrian Period and was followed by the Silurian Period. This technique does not depend on knowing the actual numerical ages of the rocks. Not all fossils are equally useful for relative dating, or correlation; some are rare, restricted to small geographic areas or to particular environments, difficult to recognize, or have such long ranges as to make precise correlation impossible. Fossils that are the most useful for correlation tend to be widespread, found in many rock types, easily recognizable, and short-lived enough to permit precise placement in the geologic column.

 

Absolute dating?

You make it sound like they know for a certainty much carbon-14, argon-40 or lead-207 was in the sample to begin with, which could give the sample what is called a built-in age. You make it sound like they know for a certainty that there was no leaching out or adding to one of the elements over the years. And what about cross contamination, where a relativity recent sample is contaminated with older surrounding material?

 

Well they test for specific materials, elements. Potassium 40 is not strontium 90. Absolute dating is a term which means that it is measured against the known half lives of these elements. Neither absolute nor relative dating can give a specific age for any extinct animal but we can ascertain a maximum and minimum time frame in which fossils were deposited in specific substrates. You are correct that the ranges cover many thousands of years but the times we are talking are blips still, in a history of eons.

 

Okay, that's fair.

In order for the Christian faith to make sense, the life of Jesus must be taken as literal truth, surely. That's the only thing that makes sense to me. Once I accepted that my heart really opened up spiritually into a new world.

So I'm not sure then how one decides what is allegory and what is "literal truth." While I understand that there is metaphor, analogy,

That's where I think you are wrong and a true Christian wouldn't say that - and I don't mean that in an accusatory way just stating my thoughts. Anyone can be inspired. There is obviously something that sets apart the prophets from the rest of us - that's what makes them prophets.

If you truly believe in the power of God then ask yourself why you can't believe that He (even if it's through his Angels) can dictate to His prophets. Do you discount much of the Bible as non literal because of your spiritual wisdom or because your intellect has been convinced by human conviction?

I know a lot of it seems ridiculous, but I honestly believe that is part of the deception that is going on. We are taught to trust in our intellect and not in God. I used to be the same, now I have huge doubts about a lot of the things I took for granted. Things that seemed impossible have already been shown to not just be possible but reality to me.

Don't you think God has the power to tell us exactly what he means? I don't believe there are any idle words in the Bible although I must admit that I get headaches when I think about all the different versions and knowing exactly which ones to trust etc etc.

 

http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Origin.html

This is a page that I think is relevant to the (new) topic of this thread which I would like to share with anyone who is interested. The website it comes from is overall very good too it seems.

 

Much of the groundwork for modern paleontology and geology was done by religious men fifty years before Darwin and Wallace published their theories. It is simply not true that dating techniques rely on the assumption that evolution is true.

 

I pray that I am wrong, but this sounds frighteningly like an assault on intellect when reading and interpreting the Bible. Many passages in the Bible can be interpreted many ways - not always black or white. Without intellect then we are only sheep who follow whomever tells us what we want to hear - what we blindly believe to be what God wants us to do. So many have gone down that road only to have it leads to destruction and embarrassment for the cause of Christ.

God gives us intellect - and he expects us to use it. Faith without intellect is a frightful idea. We may have faith that our interpretation of a particular scripture is correct - and we may be wrong. With only faith there can be no error, no misinterpretation - faith alone is blind - and inerrant in the believers mind.

Only by God given intellect can we discern an errant item of faith.

The Bible must be studied and analyzed by way of intellect or we may find ourselves back in the dark ages or perhaps the Salem witch trials.

 

I guess if you say so it must be true.

 

Actually what you are saying, sounds more like the Salem witch trials or the dark ages to me.

And by the way faith is not blind, faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

 

What evident demonstration of reality is given for your faith?

 

That is so weird - the way two people, both wanting to walk the path, can see things so differently.:Angel_anim:
BTW - I did not say faith was blind - I said that faith alone - blind faith if you will, can lead to false beliefs. Those beliefs are then not subject to scrutiny by intellect or revelation. These beliefs are sacrosanct - - There is no proof, no proof is needed since they are from God - what you believe, in faith, has become an absolute, unchangeable reality.

Unfortunately, sometimes our faith is misguided.

 

The Bible for one thing.

 

What I was merely pointing out that Jesus said; "“I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes"

There is nothing wrong with using your intellect to understand the Bible, the problem is in intellectualizing what the Bible says. (Acts 17:11)

The Bible does not give permission for the inquisition or the Salem witch trials and it takes a lot of intellectualizing to say it does.

No, you did not say faith was blind but you did use the term "blind faith", which is what I was responding to. I was merely pointing out that faith without basis is not called for and is not encouraged by either God or the Bible.

Only if you believe blind faith is called for by God and the Bible.

 

Do you behold the bible, if so, your statement does not apply. (smiley face)

 

There is a type of belief that states that the measure of your goodness is equal to the strength of your belief. If things don't work out for you it is because you didn't believe strongly enough, and no matter what evidence may appear, if it is contradictory, it is regarded as a test of belief or a satanic temptation.

There is another kind of faith which is equivalent to the word trust. In this kind of faith we trust that a truth will work for us and this trust is reinforced by the works of this faith in the world. It is the kind of faith that is described that brings the emergence of heaven on earth. The smallest of seeds grows into the greatest of shrubs till the birds of the air make their nests in the shade of it's branches.

 

Not really, what I'm saying is that when reading the Bible you should be asking for and accepting the Holy Spirit's guidance and not letting your flawed human intellect get in the way of that.

I'm not entirely sure about this. I think if you're listening with your heart and in some cases do a little research on the meaning of certain things then most of it is actually pretty clear. And what isn't, if you ask Him for clarity it will come.

If you have the discipline to follow the teachings of Jesus and keep your heart as pure as possible he will be your shepherd. Your intellect is not what keeps you from being a slave, it's your pure heart that does that and His guidance.

I know what you mean but I think that most examples you would cite can be argued to be quite different in actuality.

Really? Why do you think that? Not necessarily arguing just wondering why you think that is a given. What God really wants is for us to obey Him. I know that scares some people or puts them off, but this is what it means to be Christian.

We may be wrong but God and Jesus aren't. Faith isn't believing that you are right, it's trusting that God won't lead you astray if you give yourself to Him.

And intellect can't be wrong? It's the one thing that has been consistently proven wrong, incomplete, limited, flawed, humanly fallible and susceptible to pride and ego poisons.

Source? Evidence? What exactly is an "item of faith" anyway? Again I'm not trying to be confrontational I just don't understand.

None of the atrocities during the dark ages or Salem witch trials have anything to do with this and were not committed out of "blind faith" as you call it. They were committed out of desperation (which is a sign of a lack of faith by the way) and FLAWED intellect amongst other things. I don't feel like giving a history lesson right now.

 

The dilemma of course being, the bible does not speak.

 

Beautiful.