Bible Timeline Contradicted?

[jasonwhatever]

I've been doing research on what Christian apologists state as the age of the Earth and mankind. Accordong to the Biblical timeline, there were about 1600 years from Adam's creation to the flood, then another few thousand years to Jesus' birth. And now another 2000 have elapsed. Thus, according to them, mankind was created about 6000-7000 years ago at most.

 

If that were true, then what do we make of cave paintings dated from 30000 years ago? In multiple locations around the world they have dated through various scientific means cave paintings of animals and handprints that are even over 30,000 years old. Yet, if you read the Bible timeline, in now way does it seem possible that it could account for that much time to have elapsed since creation of man.

 

This is the most compelling evidence that there possibly is that would show Genesis to not be true, in my opinion.

 

I was also wondering, on a seperate note, as to the existence of The Bible. Where was the Bible for all of those years before the 1611 version became printed? Did the common people have access to The Bible? I was always taught and concluded by The Bible that there is no way that Catholicism can truly be Christian-- their doctrines don't line up. But if all there was until the relatively recent protestant movement of the last few hundred years was Catholic, then where was the Church? And even if someone didn't agree with Catholicism but believed in Jesus Christ, then how would they be able to know what they believe if the only "Christian" teachings were those in the Catholic church? It doesn't make any sense to me. Am I missing something?

 

Thanks everyon. I'm really trying to convince myself that Christianity is not true and that my religious experiences really were from my imagination. That way maybe what life I have left in this body I might be able to live in peace. I think that when someone is brought up in religion, it makes it almost impossible for them to not believe. That would explain all these muslim fanatics who are absolutely certain of their religion; and Christianity is the same way. I sure hope that I just formed pathways in my brain that make me so convinced despite science that points otherwise. What do you all think?

[Ouroboros]

Actually SN1987A is a better proof that our world must be older than 6000 years.

[Onyx]

Sorry, Hansolo if I sound like a dolt but what is SN1987A?

[ShackledNoMore]

Not only are there cave paintings, but geology, carbon dating, and a wealth of other science that points quite conclusively to an ancient earth. Just as compelling is that we can see back in time, what is it, 12 billion years? by looking at distant galaxies.

 

I read your other thread, and didn't reply there because others gave quite good answers and what I'd have to say would have been much the same, but I am glad to see you are asking questions and weighing the evidence.

 

You must do your own questioning and find your own answers, but like many others here, the beliefs I held toppled like a house of cards when I put them under scrutiny.

[Lerato]

But if all there was until the relatively recent protestant movement of the last few hundred years was Catholic, then where was the Church? And even if someone didn't agree with Catholicism but believed in Jesus Christ, then how would they be able to know what they believe if the only "Christian" teachings were those in the Catholic church? It doesn't make any sense to me. Am I missing something?

 

Hence the need for the Inquisition to root out dissenters and burn them at the stake.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, Hansolo if I sound like a dolt but what is SN1987A?

A supernova event in 1987 that could be recorded and by simple triangulation (euclidean geometry) can be pinpointed in time of around (IIRC) 150,000-170,000 years ago, which is much longer time than 6,000 years. And this can't be "fixed" through manipulating the speed of light or other fundamentalists tricks. The distance is pretty accurate, and the speed of light wouldn't change the facts, so the event did happen that long ago, or God is a deceiver. No other options. And this is based on basic fundamental laws of physics, 2000+ years old trigonometry and pure observation. Facts, facts and facts, prove the universe is at least this old (but of course it is much older). But 6,000 years can't be true.

 

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html

 

From what I understand is that even if light speed has changed (creationists idea that it has slowed down), it doesn't change the age, because we see the effects of light speed in the time of the event, and not what presumably would be the speed of light now.

[ShackledNoMore]

Sorry, Hansolo if I sound like a dolt but what is SN1987A?

A supernova event in 1987 that could be recorded and by simple triangulation (euclidean geometry) can be pinpointed in time of around (IIRC) 150,000-170,000 years ago, which is much longer time than 6,000 years. And this can't be "fixed" through manipulating the speed of light or other fundamentalists tricks. The distance is pretty accurate, and the speed of light wouldn't change the facts, so the event did happen that long ago, or God is a deceiver. No other options. And this is based on basic fundamental laws of physics, 2000+ years old trigonometry and pure observation. Facts, facts and facts, prove the universe is at least this old (but of course it is much older). But 6,000 years can't be true.

 

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html

 

From what I understand is that even if light speed has changed (creationists idea that it has slowed down), it doesn't change the age, because we see the effects of light speed in the time of the event, and not what presumably would be the speed of light now.

Wow Han, back when I was in my deconversion process, that's exactly one of the theories I held on to for a time to try to reconcile xian account of god: that either 1) he changed the laws of physics at some point of time to create a speed of light where there had been none before or 2) through his ominpotence, he conjured up a newly created a universe in a state exactly as though it had been in existence for billions of years as a test of our faith! Obviously, I found my objections still not to hold up and I continued on to deconvert a year before the supernova, but this is VERY good material you present!

[Grandpa Harley]

From memory, doesn't the A suffix indicate that it was the first supernova of the year?

[Ouroboros]

Wow Han, back when I was in my deconversion process, that's exactly one of the theories I held on to for a time to try to reconcile xian account of god: that either 1) he changed the laws of physics at some point of time to create a speed of light where there had been none before or 2) through his ominpotence, he conjured up a newly created a universe in a state exactly as though it had been in existence for billions of years as a test of our faith! Obviously, I found my objections still not to hold up and I continued on to deconvert a year before the supernova, but this is VERY good material you present!

I came across this during my deconversion too, or rather just after, and it was to me quite convincing and definitive. I don't care about sediment layers or half-life of isotopes, since this one is pure and simple math and observation.

 

If light has slowed down, i.e. being faster at the time of the event, it would mean that the distance between the supernova and the ring would be much larger, and for them to be larger and yet look the same as they do to us, they would have to be much farther away, which in turn means that the light would have to travel farther, and that would counter the idea of changing light speed and actually make the age of the event the same! So the creationist can claim light speed was a trillion trillion trillion times faster during the supernova, but that would make the distance so incredible much farther away that it still would be 150-170,000 years ago. (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it.)

 

 

From memory, doesn't the A suffix indicate that it was the first supernova of the year?

That's how I understand it too.

[Antlerman]

I've been doing research on what Christian apologists state as the age of the Earth and mankind. Accordong to the Biblical timeline, there were about 1600 years from Adam's creation to the flood, then another few thousand years to Jesus' birth. And now another 2000 have elapsed. Thus, according to them, mankind was created about 6000-7000 years ago at most.

 

If that were true, then what do we make of cave paintings dated from 30000 years ago? In multiple locations around the world they have dated through various scientific means cave paintings of animals and handprints that are even over 30,000 years old. Yet, if you read the Bible timeline, in now way does it seem possible that it could account for that much time to have elapsed since creation of man.

 

This is the most compelling evidence that there possibly is that would show Genesis to not be true, in my opinion.

This whole Biblical timeline deal that young earth creationists base their dating on is from the writings of a man named James Ussher who live in the 1600's. His chronology put the moment of creation at the night before Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. So what you have is a bunch of people who reject everything all the worlds scientists agree on based on this sort of reasoning from the 17th Century, and go out a build a $27,000,000 fantasy-land museum for ignorant peasants to spend their hard-earned dollars at so they can put a face on reality that gives them a way to hide themselves from facing facts.

 

When you start realizing where these people get their knowledge from, the whole illusion they have any idea what they might be talking about begins to unravel rather rapidly, doesn't it?

 

I was also wondering, on a seperate note, as to the existence of The Bible. Where was the Bible for all of those years before the 1611 version became printed? Did the common people have access to The Bible? I was always taught and concluded by The Bible that there is no way that Catholicism can truly be Christian-- their doctrines don't line up. But if all there was until the relatively recent protestant movement of the last few hundred years was Catholic, then where was the Church? And even if someone didn't agree with Catholicism but believed in Jesus Christ, then how would they be able to know what they believe if the only "Christian" teachings were those in the Catholic church? It doesn't make any sense to me. Am I missing something?

Nope, you’re not missing anything. These sound incredibly similar to the thoughts I had as I was beginning my process of heading towards de-converting. One thing you’ll probably eventually come to also is that when you realize that the notion of knowing what the church originally looked like in order to follow that, is an utter fantasy. Modern religious scholarships now understand early Christianity as more properly stated, “Early Christianities.”

 

There was a wide plethora of Christianities that existed, and what became what we call today as “Christianity” was the one that was forced to the top through politics and persecutions within various groups of Christians fighting against others. Competitor’s writings were destroyed, and the canonization of writing were the ones that aligned with the ideas that supported the top-dog group at the time. This is Christianity. Not some down-from-heaven delivered whole Truth of God. That’s a marketing spin. The Gospels are a reflection of the prevailing doctrines of the time.

 

So what this really means is that nothing, Catholic or Protestant church can claim to be following the original teachings. That Christianity no longer exists, and never will again.

 

Thanks everyon. I'm really trying to convince myself that Christianity is not true and that my religious experiences really were from my imagination. That way maybe what life I have left in this body I might be able to live in peace. I think that when someone is brought up in religion, it makes it almost impossible for them to not believe. That would explain all these muslim fanatics who are absolutely certain of their religion; and Christianity is the same way. I sure hope that I just formed pathways in my brain that make me so convinced despite science that points otherwise. What do you all think?

I think you’ll figure out what makes sense to you. You are right about people being raised as Muslim or as Christian. One thought that might help is to understand it as a language that people use to describe the world to themselves. People’s identities become tied to that native language they grew up using and were surrounding by in their culture. You now have to find a new vocabulary, and redefine the meanings of these words to reflect a new view of the world. A thought for you to consider when thinking about these things.

[Japedo]

I was also wondering, on a seperate note, as to the existence of The Bible. Where was the Bible for all of those years before the 1611 version became printed? Did the common people have access to The Bible? I was always taught and concluded by The Bible that there is no way that Catholicism can truly be Christian-- their doctrines don't line up. But if all there was until the relatively recent protestant movement of the last few hundred years was Catholic, then where was the Church? And even if someone didn't agree with Catholicism but believed in Jesus Christ, then how would they be able to know what they believe if the only "Christian" teachings were those in the Catholic church? It doesn't make any sense to me. Am I missing something?

 

First, The literacy rate back then was poor.. . Many were to illiterate and relied heavily upon their priests and Bishops to tell them the truth of gods word. Keeping the people uneducated is/was also a way to keep them under the oppression of fear.

 

Second, Those who went against the church were considered heretics. There was no freedom of Religion which is why there were so many people killed in so many brutal ways. King Henry the 8th also went against the church and started the Church of England. Only reason was because the Church wouldn't grant him a divorce. The people were required to follow their leader as their leader spoke on behalf of god. I'll also have you note that he had the first English printed buybull put into print for the soul purpose of giving the proverbial finger to Rome.

 

If nothing else what we've learned throughout history is those who control the religion, control the land and people.

Thanks everyon. I'm really trying to convince myself that Christianity is not true and that my religious experiences really were from my imagination. That way maybe what life I have left in this body I might be able to live in peace. I think that when someone is brought up in religion, it makes it almost impossible for them to not believe. That would explain all these muslim fanatics who are absolutely certain of their religion; and Christianity is the same way. I sure hope that I just formed pathways in my brain that make me so convinced despite science that points otherwise. What do you all think?

 

I think you should only be interested in convincing yourself of the truth. *IF* Christianity were true it would be able to withstand any question, any examination and so forth. One would not have to bridge the gaps with fairytales in order to maintain believing it. There were 3 things in Christianity that helped fuel my deconversion. Seek and ye shall find... I sought out the truth and found it. You will know them by their fruits. Christians fruits are rotten to the core and promote an abusive mindset and last but not least... The truth will set you free. This is one thing that I do claim to be truth. Since I have found out what the truth isn't, I have been free in more way's then I can type out here. I haven't necessarily found answers to what the truth is.. I just know what it's not if that makes sense..

 

Anyways..

It takes mountains of work to deprogram. I wish you much luck on your search JW!!

[bush country]

Hi JW, I hope this helps.

 

One thing that helped to finally toppled the house of cards for me was reading the book The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. I had caught the tail end of a National Geographic special about no archaeological evidence for the Exodus. I started looking around about that and found the book.

 

The reason it is important is this - you cannot have the new testament without the old testament. If the old testament is untrue, then there is no basis for the new. The Bible Unearthed explains what the archaeological record reveals and explains when & why the old testament was written. This is when it finally dawned on me that the bible story was a myth just like that of every other religion.

 

An aside to Grandpa, Antlerman, and Hans - I really like reading your posts. They've helped clarify my thoughts considerably since my deconversion.

[Antlerman]

There were 3 things in Christianity that helped fuel my deconversion. Seek and ye shall find... I sought out the truth and found it. You will know them by their fruits. Christians fruits are rotten to the core and promote an abusive mindset and last but not least... The truth will set you free. This is one thing that I do claim to be truth. Since I have found out what the truth isn't, I have been free in more way's then I can type out here. I haven't necessarily found answers to what the truth is.. I just know what it's not if that makes sense..

I have to highlight this because ironically it was exactly these three verses that kept resonating inside me through my whole deconversion process too! They still stand out today as ironic truths, ironic in how they shed light as a piercing beacon on what fundamentalist Christian is, the modern-day Pharisees who cry the loudest they have truth, yet are the furthest from it.

 

As far as not yet finding the answers to what truth is, I think you have. Truth is possibilities.

 

An aside to Grandpa, Antlerman, and Hans - I really like reading your posts. They've helped clarify my thoughts considerably since my deconversion.

Well thank you! That makes me feel really good. It's nice to hear my thoughts mean something to others.

[Ouroboros]

Agree with A-man there. It's good to hear that my words too means something for someone. Eventhough I can't even begin to understand how my posts make sense to anyone...

[a skeptical believer]

Hi JW, I hope this helps.

 

One thing that helped to finally toppled the house of cards for me was reading the book The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. I had caught the tail end of a National Geographic special about no archaeological evidence for the Exodus. I started looking around about that and found the book.

 

The reason it is important is this - you cannot have the new testament without the old testament. If the old testament is untrue, then there is no basis for the new. The Bible Unearthed explains what the archaeological record reveals and explains when & why the old testament was written. This is when it finally dawned on me that the bible story was a myth just like that of every other religion.

 

An aside to Grandpa, Antlerman, and Hans - I really like reading your posts. They've helped clarify my thoughts considerably since my deconversion.

 

This might be just what I'm looking for. Usually when a non-fiction book is recommended I look up the reviews on amazon.com. (Sort of like looking at the feedback on EBay) and then I try and get an idea of where the negative reviews might be coming form. I am definitely going to buy this book and go from there. Thanks for the mention.

[Grandpa Harley]

Glad you enjoy my odd erudition...