Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by IAMWEAK_2007, Feb 9, 2011.
When was all the pyramids in Egypt been built, was it before or after the great flood?
I do not know anything about the source, however Apologetics Press has an online article Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood? by Alden Bass, a junior religious studies major at Yale University. The article has several timelines and an extensive bibliography.
Depends if you believe in a global flood or a localized flood. However, If you are a literalist on creation. And add up the years of the patriarchs the flood should have occured on 2304 BC. Interesting to note most Egyptoligist and archeologist hold that the Pyramids of Giza were built by the Pharaoh Khufu or Cheops in 2560 BC. or 256 years before the great flood. And certainly there should be evidence on the Pyramids that such a flood occured. Yet interestingly enough no such evidence occured.
Assuming Adam was created and fell on the same day we have this record of the biblical history of the world.
600. So the earth had been around in existance for 1,656 years before the great flood. Now note
By the time Abraham has come along the world has only been in existance 2010 years. Using 1Kings 6:1 and back tracking 480 years after the exodus and including 430 years as inclusive of Abraham to the time spent by Israel in Egypt it may be assumed that Abraham lived around 1950 BC making the flood around 2304 BC. This of course is just a rough reveiw using the biblical text themselves. I may be off by 50 years but like I said a rough review. Note
It is evident that they were built post-flood, for any Egyptian civilization (and the people that created it) would have been washed away.
That simple answer is not really all that simple under the hood, however, for it flies in the face of common dating schemes applied to the Scriptures such as Archbishop Usher's view that the earth was created in 4004 BC.
While I admire those who have worked elaborate dating schemes based on the genealogies in Genesis, those schemes do not seem to reflect the reality of our world in complete accuracy. That is not to take away one iota from the Scriptures -- heaven forbid! They are what they are and record what they record, but to date based on the published dates takes into account many an argument from silence and assumes that the Scriptures are the ONLY source of knowing anything, which we know is un-true. Once we see all things clearly, we will realize that the Scriptures are perfectly true but that they simply have not told us EVERY detail that we would need to know to actually date the earth based on their contents.
There is the other option that the flood didn't happen globally.
Modern dating "schemes? No we've gone from Pryramids to Pryamid schemes?
Interesting, using the bible to determine the nature of our world doesn't present reality or complete accuracy? Must be a source document issue.
So we can know things apart from scripture? Yes I guess thats true.
I would go on to say scriptures are true in what they actually assert. I don't think God made the world in a literal six days but used "days" as an organizational method to communicate creation. I don't think if he wanted us to know exactly how he put the universe together and the time period in which to do it he would have purposely left out information.
I would say two things... First, you have a BIG issue with the veracity of Scripture. That is between you and God. Second, IF one takes the Scriptures (in their original language) the text is not ambiguous as you indicate. It tells us very precise things, including a global flood, etc.
Genesis 9:11-12 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
If the flood was only local, did God break His promise? There have been many local floods since Noah's day.
Vegetation was created on the 3rd day. The sun and moon were created on the 4th day. How did plant life survive millions of years before the sun was created?
After the flood. They could not have survived a world wide flood.
How do you know? Do you have the autographs? BTW. I believe scriptures are true in what they assert but if it doesn't mesh with reality then there is an issue. For instance. Is there a dome in which the stars son and moon are engraved? Does this Dome or firmament hold up water above it? Is that seen in reality? If not then how am I to view scripture in these accounts such as creation and the flood?
Or was he explaining it to someone who understood little of the actual events. I'm certain long before telecommunications if an entire region were destroyed by a flood to expand that Idea to the whole world is easy and to ease Noah's mind I won't destroy humanity in that method. Humanity is the key issue. God hasn't wiped out humanity since has he by flood? God hasn't lied.
exactly why I don't take creation literally. Its organizational not time frame thus day 1 relates to day 4 and day 2 relates to day 5 and day 3 relates to day 6. The days indicated Gods' purpose of creating a sabbath theology.
This reflects why there was a fight for the life of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 70's and 80's. The exact kind of bunk that Thinkingstuff is putting out that was at the heart of the battle.
And the takeover has hurt the cause of Christ greatly. God is not an illogical God. To create vegetation before light is to violate the natural law that God created. Genesis was never meant to be a scientific explanation of creation. To try to make it one is a mistake. The important issue is why God created, not how he created.
Paul would disagree. He cites how the woman was created in his admonitions concerning God's intended gender roles.
Lots of fertilizer and sun lamps
Genesis does several things. Initiates a theology of God. It establishes a theology of the Sabbath. And incorporates a theology of man. Thus this latter is reflective of how God interacts with man and how man is to interact with others especially regarding the establishment of marriage. To which Paul is referring.
What "bunk" all I've done is quote scripture and shown how it doesn't reflect reality or observation. Thus the Pyramids show no evidence of flooding though they were clearly built before the flood and we can guess their age beyond carbon dating but by their actual literature just as I've done determining Abrahams age and the time of the flood corrisponding to it. And as has been notted
I'll not take up all those arguments with you. I know they are your personal hot buttons and that you "think" that you have a very fool-proof case with them. But, I would remind you of the Scriptures:
Psalm 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
We have the Scriptures. They are sufficient, and Christ indicated as much. He ought to know (He did not have the autographs either, and most often cited the LXX).
I am offended. I have never once, since becoming a Christian, have ever indicated that there was no God. I believe there is a God and that the bible is his word. I believe God interacts with humanity through his word. I've never denied such things. And I understand that Jesus sited the LXX. That brings up two questions 1) if the LXX why limit OT to just the Massoretic text copied 500 years later. and 2) Did he actually quote the LXX or Quote the Hebrew copy but because the writers wrote in greek they chose the greek referrence over re-translating a hebrew or aramaic text back into greek since the work of the LXX was already established and well used? See maybe its all these questions I have that get me into trouble.