{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/12/2015 1:39:35 AM
1
Why, because you are saying that the bible needs to be validated as a reference to prove something that isn't in the bible? That's like telling me that the Lord of the rings needs to be validated before you'll accept facts about Huck Finn.
English
-
So the bible doesn't directly state something? When has that ever mattered to Christians?
-
That's the problem with Christianity and even atheist arguments nowadays. Instead of going by what the bible says they like to go by what Christians say about the bible.
-
The bible doesn't have to directly state it. Using things the bible directly states, it can be determined how old the earth supposedly is.
-
No you can't, because the bible is not written chronologically and every detail is not in there because it didn't need to be. The Scripture is there to lead us unto salvation through Jesus Christ and the more humans start adding, the further we get from that.
-
I love how you refuse to look at my example, and continue to say the same things over and over again. You're just like SGC.
-
Thank you
-
That wasn't a compliment. He's quite possibly the stupidest person I've ever met.
-
Considering you're a child, you should have some respect for your elders. You're just a little punk who thinks he knows it all. Plus you talk about stupid, I had to explain a very simple argument to you like ten times!
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 7/12/2015 4:29:28 AMYou can't be telling me that you agree with OP. And why should I respect people who can't comprehend simple logic? Just because something isn't explicitly stated doesn't mean it can't be determined. This is a principle that you should have learned in kindergarten mathematics. Seriously, and you say you have to explain things over and over. I don't think I know it all. I've argued my points with logic. Scroll down, look through my comments, and if you still agree with OP, then please castrate yourself and kill any offspring you have already created.
-
It's cute when little boys try to talk tough.
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 7/12/2015 3:45:47 PMI see you're now trying to deflect attention from your poor arguments. You better be careful what you say. That sentence there could get you in a lot of trouble.
-
Only a childish perverted mind would think of it that way. And your arguments have been flawed some the beginning and I've explained that many times. I'm sorry you don't understand.
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 7/12/2015 4:44:14 PMI understand perfectly. The bible never says how old the earth is. Let me explain this mathematically. Theorem Y does not state that theorem X is correct. However, theorem Y is used in a proof of theorem X. Therefore, the validity of theorem X depends on the validity of Theorem Y. If you can't comprehend this, then I'd say you must have no understand of mathematics whatsoever. But go ahead, cover up your poor arguments by attacking my age. Ad Hominem has never won an argument before, but who knows, you could be the first to make it happen. I suspect that, given your poor grasp of mathematics, you are probably younger than me anyway.
-
You say: "Theorem Y does not state that theorem X is correct. However, theorem Y is used in a proof of theorem X. Therefore, the validity of theorem X depends on the validity of Theorem Y. " Like I said this is flawed from the start. Not only does theorem y not state that x is correct, it doesn't make any statements about x. Also, just because y is used to prove x, doesn't mean it's logical to do so. There are too many puzzle pieces missing to formulate any kind of reasonable theorem. It's not the bible that needs validation, it's the calculator.
-
And you have yet to look at the calculator. You refuse to look at my example because you're too stubborn to acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong. If theorem Y is used to prove theorem X, and the proof is sound, then it is completely logical to use theorem Y in the proof. You can't say that the proof is not sound because you refuse to look at the proof. Look at my example or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
So I found an article about the show... ” Ussher examined the Bible’s historical record for an event to synchronize with our familiar calendar systems and then, by adding the interlocked ages and events in the Old Testament counted back to arrive at acreation date of 4004 BC." Hate to say it, but I was right. This theory is nothing new and it's flawed. The problem is, events in the bible that synchronize with our calendar only go back so far. There is an indefinite amount of time before our calendar and written history even begin. At the absolute most , you could try to calculate when Adam and Eve were created, but even that would be a stretch. Now, on a personal level. Waiting till now to look at your example wasn't me being rude, but I've heard that argument and others like it for decades. Sometimes people know better than you. And your comments about killing myself and my offspring were very distasteful. I was a teenager once upon a time, I know how it is, although it wasn't in the internet era. The anonymity grated to you by the internet is not an excuse to be a poor human being, because it can and will carry over into your real life. Before I leave, I will say this: we are all sinners and we deserve justice from God. But God, who expects perfection , knows we can't be perfect. So in his love, he came to earth, (Jesus Christ) and lived the perfect life we couldn't and then took on the punishment we deserved as sinners. So that mercy and justice could both be satisfied. If we believe that he did this and repent, then his righteousness will be granted to us, so we can spend eternity with God. Good day.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology Read up. Ironically, the parts that took place before history were the easiest because of the unbroken record of the lineage from Adam to Solomon. It was my mistake to point you in the direction of a brief summary. Hopefully this will explain a little better. Besides, OP was the one who initially made the assumption that the bible only allows for Earth to be a few thousand years old. Why is it that I don't see you arguing with him, if you're so adamant about it? Regardless of your answers, the end result is the same: OP must prove that the bible is an accurate source, as he uses it as evidence.
-
Between Adam and Solomon was not before history, before Adam, that's the problem.
-
The bible keeps perfect record of how long the earth existed before Adam. It was just a few days.
-
You are very mislead. The word day has many different meanings, it's actually used in at least four different ways in Genesis. Plus there's an unspecified amount of time between Genesis verse 1 and 2. You can't win this argument, you lack a basic understanding of the bible.
-
I know the bible and I know there isn't enough information to make the calculation.
-
And you have yet to look at the calculator. You refuse to look at my example because you're too stubborn to acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong. If theorem Y is used to prove theorem X, and the proof is sound, then it is completely logical to use theorem Y in the proof. You can't say that the proof is not sound because you refuse to look at the proof. Look at my example or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Each post further demonstrates your lack of understanding.
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 7/12/2015 6:36:25 PMAnd your generic, evasive responses are any better? I understand your point perfectly. The bible does not state how old the Earth is. I'm not saying it does. But guess what, mankind has discovered a way of figuring out things that we don't know based on things that we do know. It's called [i]logic[/i]. I already pointed you toward an example of how the Earth's supposed age was determined based on the bible. Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Episode seven, "The Clean Room". It's on Netflix streaming. If you don't have Netflix, I'll find another source that has the story. But you can't just say "I don't need to see your example because I'm right and I know it." You have two options. Either look into my example and come back with an intelligent response, or continue evading my points and confirm my suspicion that you have no grasp on science or logic.
