Fisherman:
There is no proof that scientific dating debunks Bible chronology.
😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂🤣🤣😂
Posts by Jeffro
-
57Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording 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?.
-
-
Jeffro
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording 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?.
-
-
Jeffro
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.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording 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?.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
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.
JW interpretation isn't consistent with Bible chronology, so that would be a different question to the one implied by the thread title. Bible chronology, which is wrong anyway, would place the creation of Adam in 4168 BCE, not 4026 BCE as asserted by JWs. (The discrepancy is primarily a result of omitting 213 years from the period between Abraham and the fictional Exodus by starting 430 years from fictitious Abraham's 75th year, inserting 48 years into the Divided Kingdom period because of their incorrect interpretation of Ezekiel's 390 years, and inserting 20 years into the Neo-Babylonian period because of their numerological superstitions about 1914, along with some additional minor errors introduced by not recognising that the relevant ancient societies counted ages ordinally starting from the first year.) Back in reality, we know that various human societies definitely predated the Bible's creation myth by many thousands of years.
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.
Special pleading. There's no evidence Jesus said anything attributed to him, or that he did not consider Adam and Eve to be allegorical characters, but if he believed that Adam and Eve were literal people, then he was just wrong. The spurious and contradictory 'genealogies' of Jesus conveniently appeared only after Jerusalem and its temple was destroyed.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
🤦♂️ The unskilled apologist proposes that in his view, something always existed, apparently not realising that the proposed non-physical entity would necessarily violate the laws of thermodynamics (and basic reason). He also ignores the fact that despite Sea Breeze’s straw man, neither atheists nor cosmologists assert that the universe just ‘appeared from nothing’, which is actually the creationist position.
Cosmologists offer various hypotheses about the earliest moments of the known universe, none of which are asserted as fact. Because of the relationship between matter and time, it may not even make sense to suggest there could be anything ‘before’ the universe, though it is also possible that the current universe was preceded by one or more prior universes.
Some atheists are aware of hypotheses proposed by cosmologists, and others are not. There is no ‘atheist worldview’ about how the universe began.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
See Breeze:
laws of logic, laws of morality etc
See Breeze possibly thought this false equivalence would get past me, but I just didn’t bother earlier.
‘Laws of logic’, like the ‘law of gravity’, are descriptions, not prescriptions. But the separate concept of ‘laws of morality’ are subjective (for example, in the Bible under ‘God’s perfect law’ 😂 , slavery and murdering Amelekite babies are ok, but aren’t generally accepted in polite society).
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
Sea Breeze:
And, the unfounded assumption that the universe appeared out of nothing (the standard atheist worldview) and that all phenonoma is a product of chance, chaos, and disinterested self-guidance is also not evidence.
That is neither the prevailing view in cosmology nor anything to do with atheism. The funny thing is, your ‘solution’ is that the universe appeared out of nothing, and an infinitely complex being just always existed. Both without evidence.
Gravity is a description of the way matter attracts other physical things. It is irrelevant to abstract thoughts like laws of logic, laws of morality etc.
Both are descriptions rather than prescriptions. The fact that they describe different types of things is irrelevant. And you made this objection just after you compared ideas in a book with the existence of the physical universe. 🤦♂️
I don’t have the time or inclination to continue dealing with your nonsense right now.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
Sea Breeze:
Jeffro, have a good evening. You know that my evidence comes from the Holy Bible. I have no problem quoting scripture in a discussion so that my worldview is at least consistent.
The stories and other assertions found in the Bible are claims, not evidence.
If you ever want to disclose how or why you have such great faith in the laws of logic, without acknowledgement of a lawgiver, I'm always up for the discussion.
I do not have, nor do I require, 'faith' in the 'laws of logic', and your claim that these 'laws' require a 'law-giver' is a false equivalence. Like the 'law of gravity', the 'laws of logic' are simply descriptions of the way things are, not prescriptions.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
🤦♂️Thanks for the further appeal to pride, but I'm bored now.
You're yet to offer any evidence to support any of your religious superstitions.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
I'm not interested in this tedious game. You assert a religious superstition without evidence. I do not.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
Sea Breeze:
So, you admit that you have "no explanation at all"?
Not what I said. Your expectation that I should have an alternative explanation to compete with your imaginary one is fallacious.
Whether or not I have a real or imagined alternative explanation to your religious superstitions has no bearing on whether your religious superstitions are true. Hence, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.