according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
Fisherman:
It takes a half million papers and philosophical appeals to christian thinkers to try to prove an argument?
No. There are half a million (and likely more) papers that demonstrate that 'Bible chronology' is wrong, but it isn't necessary to consider all of them. But cofty aptly demonstrated that there is a preponderance of evidence against your position.
according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
Fisherman:
The tension here is not your favorite version of Bible chronology compared to wt interpretation but that scientific dating is much older than Bible chronology challenging the Bible.
There is no challenge. The chronology offered by the Bible is plainly wrong. Rejection of the facts in favour of the stories in Genesis is just confirmation bias.
according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
Fisherman would like it to be true that scientific dating methods are just too unreliable. The usual target for claims of inaccuracy is carbon-dating, though scientists actually use various methods, and carbon-dating is only used for samples within a certain timeframe.
However, the Watch Tower Society says carbon-dating is reliable as far back as about 3,500 years ago (Awake!, 22 November 1981, p. 15). Well within that period is the earthquake that occurred during Amos' time. And, naturally, the facts of that event also show JW chronology to be wrong. See Amos' earthquake.
according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
Fisherman:
A genealogy is not allegory.
The two spurious genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not even attributed to Jesus. And just because they aren't allegory, that doesn't mean they are correct (which would be a false dichotomy). So it's not clear what your point is there.
See also “The One Who Has the Legal Right”.
according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
🤦♂️ He just keeps further demonstrating why the whole belief system is wrong.
according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
Notice the apologist’s inconsistent standards of evidence. Jesus purportedly once referring to the Jewish creation myth - without naming the characters - is described as ‘validation’, ‘verification’ and ‘certification’ that the characters were real. But literally hundreds of thousands of scientific papers about verified dating methods are dismissed because they contradict the apologist’s religious superstitions.
according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
He literally provided half a million examples containing accurate dating.
according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
Fisherman:
Obviously, the certification is believed to come from Jesus by referring to to Adam and Eve as historical.
If Jesus believed Adam and Eve were real people, he was wrong. But setting aside the fact that there is no evidence that Jesus said anything attributed to him in the Bible, Jesus never even mentions Adam or Eve, much less saying they are historical..
In one anecdote about divorce, Jesus alludes to the Jewish creation myth in passing without naming the characters, in the same way he alludes to various stories. But there is no more reason to take it as ‘validation’ of Adam than it is to believe the Good Samaritan or the prodigal son were real people.
according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
Fisherman:
There is no proof that scientific dating debunks Bible chronology.
😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂🤣🤣😂
according to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
Phizzy:
So even when a seemingly specific period like "430 years" or whatever is spoken of, this is often for literary reasons, and rarely accurate.
Such details are often initially allegorical or have some other esoteric meaning, but nutters later take them literally. Because details in Exodus 6 and 12 contradict other details in Genesis 12 about the duration the Israelites would supposedly be in Egypt (not a historical event), the alternative tradition developed that ‘Israelite slavery in Egypt’ ‘really’ started when Isaac was briefly mistreated by Ishmael (though in the story there weren’t any Israelites before Jacob). Of course, neither version is actually true though, and the Israelites were actually originally a Canaanite tribe.
