Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2015, 05:43 PM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2015 06:20 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(02-03-2015 03:11 PM)Qlueless Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:41 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  You earlier muddied the waters with mentions of "notable descendant":


I'm not disagreeing that the Bible doesn't list 27 generations between the two; I'm asking you if you think the lineages(pick one) listed in the Bible are accurate or if you think there are any "missing generations" in that list. Is the list from Adam to Joseph complete, or are there generations missing in there?

How would I know, since "son of" means both literal "son of" and also "notable descendant of"? You are asking a loaded question based on the fact that I'm explaining why dating the Flood and Creation is fruitless. What you're asking isn't in the Hebrew.

Other than this, we can see that the patriarchs' diminishing lifespans follows an interesting curve pattern. I've heard one scientist question whether toxic metals in trace amounts (oxidants) were released into the troposphere following the Flood, and thus reduced our lifespans to their current duration.

Awesome, I suppose you have actual archeological evidence that humans lived hundreds of years? Drinking Beverage

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 07:28 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(02-03-2015 03:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  How would I know, since "son of" means both literal "son of" and also "notable descendant of"? You are asking a loaded question based on the fact that I'm explaining why dating the Flood and Creation is fruitless. What you're asking isn't in the Hebrew.

So, you're saying it's possible the only people listed are the "notable" ones? If so, why doesn't the Bible mention Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, or Jacob other than the genealogies? Why not just skip straight from Eliakim to Joseph if we only care about the notable ones?

I mean sure, it's technically possible that the authors decided to include all of the notable people and a handful of nobodies, while leaving out unnumbered other nobodies. That could have happened despite it not making any sense of being consistent in any way. Just because they aren't listed in the Bible doesn't mean that they don't exist, right?

In the same way, it's technically possible that the authors omitted Jesus' gay lover. It's notable that Jesus never took a stance on homosexuality, and hey, just because his gay lover isn't listed in the Bible doesn't mean he doesn't exist, right?

Your mental gymnastics are getting blatantly desperate, Q. In order to run this route to satisfy an "old age" flood, you're opening the flood gates (bad pun) to allow anything into the Bible that isn't explicitly excluded. That just happens to be an infinite number of things. Good luck weeding out the true Christians from the chaff, now.


(02-03-2015 03:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Other than this, we can see that the patriarchs' diminishing lifespans follows an interesting curve pattern. I've heard one scientist question whether toxic metals in trace amounts (oxidants) were released into the troposphere following the Flood, and thus reduced our lifespans to their current duration.

It's because God explicitly said that people wouldn't live past 120 years after the flood. Of course, this is demonstrably wrong, but I'm merely just repeating what the Bible claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
03-03-2015, 08:59 AM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(02-03-2015 07:28 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  In the same way, it's technically possible that the authors omitted Jesus' gay lover. It's notable that Jesus never took a stance on homosexuality, and hey, just because his gay lover isn't listed in the Bible doesn't mean he doesn't exist, right?

Well there is this passage in Mark 14:51- A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. Laughat

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2015, 02:36 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(02-03-2015 07:28 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 03:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  How would I know, since "son of" means both literal "son of" and also "notable descendant of"? You are asking a loaded question based on the fact that I'm explaining why dating the Flood and Creation is fruitless. What you're asking isn't in the Hebrew.

So, you're saying it's possible the only people listed are the "notable" ones? If so, why doesn't the Bible mention Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, or Jacob other than the genealogies? Why not just skip straight from Eliakim to Joseph if we only care about the notable ones?

I mean sure, it's technically possible that the authors decided to include all of the notable people and a handful of nobodies, while leaving out unnumbered other nobodies. That could have happened despite it not making any sense of being consistent in any way. Just because they aren't listed in the Bible doesn't mean that they don't exist, right?

In the same way, it's technically possible that the authors omitted Jesus' gay lover. It's notable that Jesus never took a stance on homosexuality, and hey, just because his gay lover isn't listed in the Bible doesn't mean he doesn't exist, right?

Your mental gymnastics are getting blatantly desperate, Q. In order to run this route to satisfy an "old age" flood, you're opening the flood gates (bad pun) to allow anything into the Bible that isn't explicitly excluded. That just happens to be an infinite number of things. Good luck weeding out the true Christians from the chaff, now.


(02-03-2015 03:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Other than this, we can see that the patriarchs' diminishing lifespans follows an interesting curve pattern. I've heard one scientist question whether toxic metals in trace amounts (oxidants) were released into the troposphere following the Flood, and thus reduced our lifespans to their current duration.

It's because God explicitly said that people wouldn't live past 120 years after the flood. Of course, this is demonstrably wrong, but I'm merely just repeating what the Bible claims.

Personally, I do think the Flood was a fairly recent event. However, the Bible does not support the date you are trying to backfill for it. And...? How does this matter when we cannot have a gentle discussion of the ice age/flood evidence from science?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(03-03-2015 02:36 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Personally, I do think the Flood was a fairly recent event. However, the Bible does not support the date you are trying to backfill for it. And...? How does this matter when we cannot have a gentle discussion of the ice age/flood evidence from science?

We can. It just seems to involve you playing fast and loose with certain parts of the Bible and not others.

As far as thought exercises go, I'm perfectly fine assuming that the Bible left a bunch of things unstated, and that we can just fill in whatever we want to plug those gaps with mind caulk. These kinds of exercises can be fun. Just don't expect me to stop at mystery genealogies and flood dates...


Also, I note that you didn't answer why the Bible would (possibly) refer to "notable" descendants while taking the time to list no less than six people who are mentioned nowhere else in the Bible. I mean yeah, it's possible, it just seems super unlikely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2015, 01:18 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(03-03-2015 02:41 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 02:36 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Personally, I do think the Flood was a fairly recent event. However, the Bible does not support the date you are trying to backfill for it. And...? How does this matter when we cannot have a gentle discussion of the ice age/flood evidence from science?

We can. It just seems to involve you playing fast and loose with certain parts of the Bible and not others.

As far as thought exercises go, I'm perfectly fine assuming that the Bible left a bunch of things unstated, and that we can just fill in whatever we want to plug those gaps with mind caulk. These kinds of exercises can be fun. Just don't expect me to stop at mystery genealogies and flood dates...


Also, I note that you didn't answer why the Bible would (possibly) refer to "notable" descendants while taking the time to list no less than six people who are mentioned nowhere else in the Bible. I mean yeah, it's possible, it just seems super unlikely.

I didn't answer because your statement was not part of any level playing field as:

1. You make it sound like there are two dozen names in Bible genealogies. There are thousands of names and you are conflating the ideas (and causing problems) and

2. Don't for one moment tell me YOU believe the Genesis writers are the SAME writers who gave us the other genealogy you've quoted. You don't believe in JDEP now? Really?!

Jewish scholars of Hebrew, Christian scholars of Hebrew, and liberal scholars know as well as we both do the words mean son of or notable descendant of--and you never responded to my question about "Son of David", first.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(04-03-2015 01:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 02:41 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  We can. It just seems to involve you playing fast and loose with certain parts of the Bible and not others.

As far as thought exercises go, I'm perfectly fine assuming that the Bible left a bunch of things unstated, and that we can just fill in whatever we want to plug those gaps with mind caulk. These kinds of exercises can be fun. Just don't expect me to stop at mystery genealogies and flood dates...


Also, I note that you didn't answer why the Bible would (possibly) refer to "notable" descendants while taking the time to list no less than six people who are mentioned nowhere else in the Bible. I mean yeah, it's possible, it just seems super unlikely.

I didn't answer because your statement was not part of any level playing field as:

1. You make it sound like there are two dozen names in Bible genealogies. There are thousands of names and you are conflating the ideas (and causing problems) and

2. Don't for one moment tell me YOU believe the Genesis writers are the SAME writers who gave us the other genealogy you've quoted. You don't believe in JDEP now? Really?!

Jewish scholars of Hebrew, Christian scholars of Hebrew, and liberal scholars know as well as we both do the words mean son of or notable descendant of--and you never responded to my question about "Son of David", first.

1 Timothy 1:3-4
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith

You're making Jesus cry again.

[Image: jesusfacepalm.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(03-03-2015 02:36 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Personally, I do think the Flood was a fairly recent event. However, the Bible does not support the date you are trying to backfill for it.

How recent of an event do you think it was?


(04-03-2015 01:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I didn't answer because your statement was not part of any level playing field as:

1. You make it sound like there are two dozen names in Bible genealogies. There are thousands of names and you are conflating the ideas (and causing problems) and

What do you mean? What am I "conflating"? The Bible lists a bunch of descendants (or "notable" descendants) in chronological order. No less than six or seven of them are never mentioned elsewhere, which would make them not seem very notable.


(04-03-2015 01:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. Don't for one moment tell me YOU believe the Genesis writers are the SAME writers who gave us the other genealogy you've quoted. You don't believe in JDEP now? Really?!

Jewish scholars of Hebrew, Christian scholars of Hebrew, and liberal scholars know as well as we both do the words mean son of or notable descendant of--and you never responded to my question about "Son of David", first.

Of course not. Now, why does that matter? We can only learn of history if every piece of it comes from a single author?

The fact that the two stories are written by different authors from different times and that they don't really jive with each other or anything else we know about reality form non-Biblical sources tells me that they're not likely trustworthy sources of information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
04-03-2015, 02:56 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(04-03-2015 02:05 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 02:36 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Personally, I do think the Flood was a fairly recent event. However, the Bible does not support the date you are trying to backfill for it.

How recent of an event do you think it was?


(04-03-2015 01:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I didn't answer because your statement was not part of any level playing field as:

1. You make it sound like there are two dozen names in Bible genealogies. There are thousands of names and you are conflating the ideas (and causing problems) and

What do you mean? What am I "conflating"? The Bible lists a bunch of descendants (or "notable" descendants) in chronological order. No less than six or seven of them are never mentioned elsewhere, which would make them not seem very notable.


(04-03-2015 01:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. Don't for one moment tell me YOU believe the Genesis writers are the SAME writers who gave us the other genealogy you've quoted. You don't believe in JDEP now? Really?!

Jewish scholars of Hebrew, Christian scholars of Hebrew, and liberal scholars know as well as we both do the words mean son of or notable descendant of--and you never responded to my question about "Son of David", first.

Of course not. Now, why does that matter? We can only learn of history if every piece of it comes from a single author?

The fact that the two stories are written by different authors from different times and that they don't really jive with each other or anything else we know about reality form non-Biblical sources tells me that they're not likely trustworthy sources of information.

I have no idea when the Noahic Flood occurred. I know that you would say man has been around 2-4 million years and that Atlantis and other myths may even indicate modern civilizations may have come and gone and come again.

But I can ask you, please. The oldest known pottery? Agronomy? Writing? Painting? Cave painting?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2015, 03:00 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(04-03-2015 02:56 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I have no idea when the Noahic Flood occurred. I know that you would say man has been around 2-4 million years and that Atlantis and other myths may even indicate modern civilizations may have come and gone and come again.

I thought people have only been around for one or two hundred thousand years. I know nothing of Atlantis.


(04-03-2015 02:56 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But I can ask you, please. The oldest known pottery? Agronomy? Writing? Painting? Cave painting?

Ask me what? How old those things are?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: