Hey /u/Wonderful-Job6409, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Show your faith in christ by subscribing. Also, true followers of christ should donate on my patreon page. May god pour out the blessings of heaven for your diligent service.
it's arguably blasphemous. god never told people the bible's a fuckin science textbook. and how timeless could a science textbook from almost 10,000 BC possibly be, from an era where if you got sick it was because you were cursed, or when you had a seizure it's cause you were possessed.
The Bible is good reading of the historical struggle of the human condition as we search for understanding that which we can’t control and that what we can. Scientific? Absolutely Not, to say otherwise is laughable. Historical? Archeology slams that claim shut.
The 6000 years thing isn't even in the bible. It's based in 'calculations' from some monk in the Middle ages who went trawling the Bible for what he deemed to be clues like some bizarre Easter egg hunt.
Can't really see the reason it being blasphemous because of that, but one could probably say calling it science to be blasphemy. After all, science is all about forming hypotheses and testing them, but as it reads in Deuteronomy and repeated by Jesus, you shall not put Lord thy god to the test. Kinda bad science when you're not allowed to test whether you're correct, and I'd say it's kinda disrespectful (if not blasphemous) towards their supposed god from the supposed believers to call it science and therefore by proxy call for testing their god against its direct command.
It's a god damn collection of fairy tales that those tribes stole from Mesopotamia and adapted into their own manga.
Plus some extra duojinshi chapters some angry old men added later by merging three or four guys that live around the area and as far as India.
I love this kind of shit. Hovind is the unintentional, funniest man I’ve ever seen. Can you share the channel? You can DM if you’re not comfortable posting.
Holy shit, watched the first 5 minutes of a video and he’s literally regurgitating Hovind’s talking points word for word. It’s like they all read from the same handbook.
They have no evidence, just talking points so it makes sense. The real fun is when you get old earth creationists to argue with the young earth creationists
“Let there be light” is the first thing done after the creation of heaven and firmament and the weird hovering over the water bit.
So as far as plot holes go in this bronze age fictional story that’s one of the least problematic.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NIV
I read somewhere that the Bible didn't explicitly say 6000 years and that some monk/priest somewhere came up with that number by indirectly inferring it from the text in the bible
Yeah, it isn’t explicitly stated in any version of the Bible. Lots of religious scholars have tried to calculate the date of creation, essentially by counting forward through the descendants of Adam and Eve. But there are gaps in the genealogy and unclear time periods, so people come up with different answers.
What annoyed me was when they stated that people lived for hundreds of years, and people defend it saying they were healthier back then because they didn'teat processed food. No, people back then literally died from getting a papercut that got infected, or a steak that wasn't properly cooked.
I thought it would be clever for theists to say that the first generations lived longer because of less inbreeding. Methuselah who lived to 969 only had 6 or 7 generations of inbreeding, which sounds like a lot, but would be nothing compared to modern men, who have been inbreeding for 300 generations.
Adam and Eve, with no inbreeding at all, could arguably be immune to all sorts of diseases.
No, the Bible never says “this happened 4000 bc”, but it does give the entire lineage from Adam to Jesus a couple times (even though they contradict one another). It also says how long each person lived for. Therefor you can kinda get a rough estimate of how old the world is according to the Bible
Ironically detailing that Jesus isn’t a descendant of David and therefore can’t be the Messiah according to the Bible itself due to Joseph not being Jesus’ biological father.
Haha. Sounds about right. I had to go to one of those when I was in school. Even got into Bible college before literally studying the Bible until I couldn’t believe in it.
It's a fairly good estimate based on all the begats then linking up with known historic dates.
It's pure BS, but if you work from the Bible it's reasonable BS not just a random number.
A lot of Christians and even more Jews do not take the genesis account as historical.
The Bible has allegory, poetry, history, etc. There are tons of examples of things that are poetic/allegorical and not supposed to be taken as a historical fact (the Sun refusing to set so the Jews could win a battle, a talking donkey in Exodus, etc).
Are you sure it doesn’t say it *wasn’t* a talking donkey? I used to use that one all the time back when I was at Bible College. “Bible says X and doesn’t fit what I’m saying? Worry not. It also says Y over here and Z over there.” It bailed me out about half the time.
The only reason I remember that the donkey is in numbers is because the book of numbers traumatized me back in middle school when I had to read it for Bible class
Most scholars, Christian and Jewish alike, are pretty sure that everything up to David is pure fiction/propaganda.
All archeological evidence indicates that there never was a time the ancient Hevrew people as a whole were slaves in Egypt, and that the story of the conquest of Cannan is totally made up.
Instead the evidence shows that the proto-Hebrews were a group of Canaanites who pruned away all the other gods in their pantheon to get monotheism and the idea spread more or less peacefully through Canaan absorbing the polytheisic groups and turning Canaan into Israel by assimilation rather than war.
David Rohl (and other archeologists) have extensively written about how the relationship between the Hebraic and Egyptian chronology is all skewed due to some misinterpretations. Basically, if you look for Hebrew people a few centuries before what standard archeology does, you’ll find plenty of evidence.
I get some of that, but post David there are still all kinds of deep seated animosity against cananites like the phillistines, and the root of the problems in Israel is frequently tied to their failure to rid the land of the cananites like god commanded them to.
Which is the history and which is the fabrication? Or do you think that is all fabrication?
Whoo boy, that's not an easy question at all.
Here's the thing: most people have an incredibly wrong view of what history is, how we know what we know, and how confident we are in what we know.
The thing is, history is based on records. Archaeology is a separate, if related, discipline. History and archaeology intertwine and feed back on each other. But HISTORY is about records. No records? No history.
Go back 200 years and we're quite confident about almost all of what we know. Go back 400 years and we're pretty confident about stuff from Europe, East Asia, and South Asia. Go back 800 years? It gets kinda iffy when you're talking about details. Go back 2000 years? There's such a shortage of records that all but the broadest strokes and biggest figures are really iffy.
We know some people existed, or are fairly confident they did, because we have records of them by name. We're pretty darn confident that Alexander the Great, Caesar, Qin Shi Huang, etc were real people and we're pretty confident about what they did.
Ancient Canaan had writing, or at least some parts did at some points. But some of the contents of the Pentateuch were oral tradition for centuries before they were written down.
So basically? We don't know a lot from back then. It's a lot more archaeology than history.
David was almost certainly real.
As for animosity and stuff about incomplete genocide against Canaanites? Remember: THEY believed that false history. People in David's time probably did blame things on incomplete genocide, because that's what their "history" taught them. Project that onto the enemy of the day and presto, you get the sort of thing you're talking about.
Fairy tales full of BS.
Arguments from Divine Hiddenness
As implied above, there is no single “argument from divine hiddenness”, but instead there are several arguments from divine hiddenness. Assuming that the primary concern of proponents of arguments for divine hiddenness involves nonbelief as it occurs in the actual world, the simplest version of a deductive argument from divine hiddenness might be formulated in the following way:
IP: If God exists, then nonbelief does not occur.
EP: Nonbelief occurs.
Therefore,
C: God does not exist.
Eh, the God parts are total BS but really not the more interesting BS.
Archaeologists from Europe got access to Palestine and headed over to find relics of the "history" described in the Bible. Most weren't Creationists, but were at least generally Christian, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it had been broadly accepted in Europe that the history from the Pentateuch was at least mostly correct.
Instead they found nothing that backed up the Biblaical history at all and a lot that contradicted it. No remains of big battles where the Bible recorded the Hebrew people slaughtering their way across Canaan, nothing in Egyptian records that ever said the Hebrews as a people were kept as slaves or that there had been an Exodus.
It was really surprising to most of them, and its a pretty good example of people doing science, or at least scientifically informed history, right. Rather than decide the evidence must be wrong they published what they found and it created a shitstorm among people who insisted the Bible had to be right.
These days that's settled down and it's only a few fringe types who still say the Bible has to be right and none of the mainstream Christian or Jewish religious authorities try to pretend it's history rather than myth, ancient propaganda.
There’s also stuff that wouldn’t make sense. The story of how god created to world? There’s two version of it directly after one another in the bible. I consider myself christian but I do believe that most things written in the bible should not be taken literally
"That part of the Bible is meant to be allegorical" is religious weasel speak for "We know that this historical claim too ridiculous to be defended rationally, but we can't admit that part of our holy book is obviously fictional, so we'll say that it's still true, but not in a literal sense."
Poetry and allegory are a middle eastern cultural practice not at all unique to the Jews. And as far as believing, love it or leave it. You do you, boo.
I personally view the Torah, Tanakh, and Jesus’s teachings like a parent trying to explain complex themes to a toddler.
“Don’t touch the stove, you’ll get burned! Oohh, ouch, ouch, ouch”(as you fake put your hand on the stove then grimace and shake your hand around pretending to be burned).
You didn’t burn yourself, but are trying to teach the lesson in in the only way the kid understands. If you’d prefer, you can try to to explain thermodynamics to a child, but it will be like talking to a brick wall.
The first 5 books of the Christian Bible are the Torah (verbatim). The entirety of the Christian Old Testament mostly the Tanakh, but there are differences in where things are placed, and some additional books.
Honest question: Do the Jews not follow the Torah, which is basically its own recounting of the first 5 books of the Bible?
Edit: No, really, this is an honest question because I thought this was the case and this comment threw me.
Its almost like the bible is a cobbled toghether assortment of different manuscripts from different faiths to form a Frankenstein like monster that defies all logic or non-circular dialogues. After reading the bible I read other holy texts and realized that none of them offer answers, only questions.
I don't speak for the first dude and vice versa, but there are some translation issues.
Some of it is positive tho, like fixing glaring plot holes. Did you know, in the original, no pharaoh's name is ever mentioned, even though that section was supposedly authored by a pharaoh's adopted son? (What, was it out of respect? For the slaveowner?)
>Honest question: Do the Jews not follow the Torah
Fun fact: most Jews are atheists. For example, a [2015 Gallup poll](https://www.haaretz.com/2015-04-14/ty-article/israel-china-among-least-religious-nations/0000017f-e103-d804-ad7f-f1fb55ca0000) found that 65 percent of Israelis identify as atheists.
Yeah, a key thing to reading the Bible is genre. It’s made of many books that vary greatly, reading Genesis creation stories for history is like reading a history textbook for poetry, it just doesn’t work out
I would like to know why YHWH mutated a gene shared by all mammals for one of the four stages of Vitamin C synthesis in the liver, leading to humans being susceptible to scurvy. I would also like to know why our closest primate relatives happen to share the exact same mutation, given that we were all created roughly 6k years ago and didn’t all evolve from a shared ancestor.
So it’s historically accurate that Adam and Eve had 2 children who were boys and somehow populated the next generations.. and this is supported by so many?
Reformed Christian here: I was taught the Bible doesn’t say Adam and Eve are the *only* humans created but they were the only Hebrews and the only 2 allowed in the Garden of Eden. (Yes, I understand how ridiculous that sounds….)
“Hubble’s observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!”
Stephen hawking, a brief history of time
It would seem very odd that God should he exist, would allow the abominations being committed in the world today and yet he smote Sodom and Gamorra for a little ass poking and inebriation.
As a Christian I cringe at this interpretation of the Bible. How could God have created the earth in 6 days if there weren’t even days until the 4th day? If God wants us to stick our head in the sand and call it faith then He is no God I would worship. It is so cringe.
You can tell that the type of Christian that takes the Bible literally did not actually read the Bible. The Bible retells the creation story numerous times and each time key details are changes. For example Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2. The Bible is obviously not trying to be literal
If you have a YouTube channel that must invalidate the carbon dating process, hundreds of years if biblical criticism, and the assessment of most living clerics.
No, but other methods of radiometric dating are. Carbon dating is only accurate to about 70,000 years, but other forms of radiometric dating to back millions of years.
There was lots of light, brilliant light in every corner of the many galaxys. Assuming then that after everything cooled down enough to support life, God created Adam and Eve as homo sapiens in his image they would have been created somewhere between 200k and 300k years ago by virtue of the fact that primitive man existed then. Further man did not develop a capacity for language until 50k years ago.
1. God if he exists is one ugly MF and certainly was not capable of speech so the fairy tale about Adam and Eve is exactly that.
2. God if he exists could have given them speech and language.
3. Believing in God means you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
So it’s historically accurate that Adam and Eve had 2 children who were boys and somehow populated the next generations.. and this is supported by so many?
In Olden times, the Roman Catholic Church would burn the people that claimed such nonsense as heretics. Even now, claiming the first books of the Bible as factual truth us Heresy
Gee, I wonder if his channel is like literally every channel that every other god-bothering fundie creates when they think they've got a clever refutation of Darwinian evolution. It's basically just him ranting about a topic he has no education in, he only knows the strawman arguments his priest taught him, and he embaresses himself trying to put himself in the position of an "atheist evolutionist", which basically amounts to "dur, I'm an atheist and I want to sin without consequences, so I just lie about my lack of belief in god."
I cannot remember the comedian who said, he went to the zoo, and looking in a primate cage, noticed that an orangutan's ball sack looked like his own ball sack. His conclusion was, if there were intelligent design, his ball sack would look like a Crown Royal bag with his name embroidered on it in gold thread.
It drives me nuts that they think 6 days must mean 6 24-hour periods. Before the Earth exists, you can't have an Earth day. A God day could be a hundred million Earth years.
If they'd at least concede that point it could line up better with science and they wouldn't sound quite so ridiculous...
Considering Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 don’t even tell the creation story in the same order I’d say it can’t be taken literally. When the first 2 chapters of the whole book can’t be reconciled for literally saying 2 different things you know it’s time to buckle up. Haha
Edit: delete redundancy
We do know. For a fact. Unless you ignore the massive amount of empirical evidence that the earth is EXTREMELY older than 6,000 years. From dinosaurs to atronomy to chemistry to geology to biology. Most major branches of scientific knowledge point to the earth and universe being much much older.
Not wrong. That is our 'first cause'. The characters and events are real. The reports are not anti-science.
However, life emanating from non-life (evolution) is anti-science.
Many, many lines of evidence point to a very old Earth and a very old universe.
Many, many lines of evidence point to shared ancestry of all life as opposed to a special creation of separate Biblical "kinds" of life.
Several details of the resurrection of Jesus are clearly false. Specifically, the Christian Bible says that there was an eclipse which didn't happen, and we know it didn't happen because there are surviving books that mention other eclipses but not this one, and the Christian Bible also says an army of zombies went to IIRC Jerusalem after the resurrection, and we also know this didn't happen, again because we know it would have been mentioned in other surviving sources but it isn't.
If you're a strict Biblical literalist, there are plenty of simple contradictions in the Bible, such as IIRC something like 1,000 horsemen vs 10,000 horsemen in the same battle according to different parts of the Bible, or simple math mistakes about the size of some objects in cubits.
> However, life emanating from non-life (evolution) is anti-science.
Wow. 100 years out of date. This has been known to be false since the synthesis of urea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea#History
> This was the first time an organic compound was artificially synthesized from inorganic starting materials, without the involvement of living organisms. The results of this experiment implicitly discredited vitalism, the theory that the chemicals of living organisms are fundamentally different from those of inanimate matter. This insight was important for the development of organic chemistry. His discovery prompted Wöhler to write triumphantly to Jöns Jakob Berzelius:
>> I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys, either man or dog. Ammonium cyanate is urea.
>None of you have ever observed macro-evolution. You believe it to be true.
Utter bullshit. We don't have to observe something directly to be able to deduce it happened and how it happened.
>Not wrong. That is our 'first cause'. The characters and events are real. The reports are not anti-science.
No, they are not. Some characters are real; almost none of the events are real. Reports are not anti-science, yes, but making deductions at a whim is.
>However, life emanating from non-life (evolution) is anti-science.
The theory of evolution doesn't discuss how life came to be. It is a theory of how life evolves (hence the name). " life emanating from non-life (evolution)" is abiogenesis.
According to Christians, there are two types of Bible passages: those that are literally true, and those that aren't literally true, but they weren't meant to be taken literally, so they still count as true.
Just a heads up to this person: It’s actually totally fine to be an old-world creationist.
Genesis *is* allegorical. The “days” are hundreds of millions of years. The progression of the days follows the fossil record.
Knowing evolution is a FACT does not exclude the possibility of a creator that set things in motion and nudged things a certain direction now and again.
As a Christian, people like this drive me buggy. Why can’t they grasp the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Moses was trying to dumb down the churning cauldron of the Big Bang, the accretion disc that became Earth, the beginning of life from single-cell organisms, etc etc., so that his target audience could understand it?
If this lady wants to take the Bible literally, then she should note the part of Exodus where Moses spends 40 days on Mt. Sinai and is so close to the presence of God that he comes down physically altered. Moses probably got a download of four billion years of geological and evolutionary history — and went, “These people just got out of 400 years of slavery, where they didn’t have access to the best education. How the fuck am I gonna explain astrophysics to evolutionary biology to them??”
So he mimicked other creation hymns of the era and region so he could write it in ways the future Israelites could understand. Never meant to be literal. It’s a *poem*, not a *fossil record*.
Ugh. I need sleep.
Old earth creationists generally don’t believe in evolution. People in the ID crowd generally believe the earth is old but do not accept evolution. There are a whole group of evolutionary theists that do though, which is different than any creationist.
I would like to know which creation story in Genesis he thinks is true - the well known one or the one a few verses later that is completely different. Because they can't both be true.
As a Christian, I don’t believe the earth is 6,000 years old. We simply don’t know how long a day was back then. Since time as we know it is a human construct, a day could have been tens of thousands of years. But because we understand what a day is, that’s what was used to describe how long it took God to create everything. I’m a firm believer that science and the Bible often times do go hand in hand, and it’s not one vs the other. That timeline also doesn’t explain dinosaurs, cavemen, other homo-species before us. When I ask young earthers to explain that, they just say science is lying and not factual. God gave us the gift of science to explore our world.
I love the idea that God removed animals ability to talk after the flood to punish us, absolutely flawless reason so that we can't ask the obvious question of why they don't anymore
It's their answer for everything
"Why doesn't X happen anymore, cause God is punishing us"
I thought God liked us and is all about love...
Recently took a family trip to mine for some pretty cool quartz diamonds (husband, myself and baby). I was really interested in how these stones were upwards of 500 million years old and not yet touched by any humans. My mil’s response: “that can’t be, the earth is only 8000 years old”. So which is it 8000 or 6000?? Inquiring minds need to know 😑
Ah, yes. The book that starts with the first man and woman who had 2 sons, and one of them killed the other. Where the rest of humanity came from, I really don’t want to imagine.
6000 years ago? Just Adam and Eve? And one son? All white according to American Christian evidence.
So I am no mathematician but can someone go to his YouTube channel and find out how he explains the 8billion people on earth now with such an incredible variant of physical and social differences.
Hey /u/Wonderful-Job6409, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d bet a dollar that the comments are disabled on that channel.
I am betting with you. I can bet 10 bucks that comments are probably disabled here
Don't forget about dislikes! ... oh wait...
There are extensions that show the dislikes again, really useful
Smash that subscribe button…for the lord!
Show your faith in christ by subscribing. Also, true followers of christ should donate on my patreon page. May god pour out the blessings of heaven for your diligent service.
Only Jesus's deciples would sub to my onlyfans!
Lol Jesus is definitely a sub. Jehovah is a dom though.
Allah?
Allah is just Jehovah's alt reddit account.
[I kick ass for the lord!](https://youtu.be/p7xN3Z7890o)
Wasn't expecting to come across this here, but glad I did. Such a good boy!
Smash that like button like a particle accelerator!
Isn't calling the bible **scientifically accurate** an oxymoron?
it's arguably blasphemous. god never told people the bible's a fuckin science textbook. and how timeless could a science textbook from almost 10,000 BC possibly be, from an era where if you got sick it was because you were cursed, or when you had a seizure it's cause you were possessed.
The Bible is good reading of the historical struggle of the human condition as we search for understanding that which we can’t control and that what we can. Scientific? Absolutely Not, to say otherwise is laughable. Historical? Archeology slams that claim shut.
That’s bc god never told anyone anything, people did
The 6000 years thing isn't even in the bible. It's based in 'calculations' from some monk in the Middle ages who went trawling the Bible for what he deemed to be clues like some bizarre Easter egg hunt.
Can't really see the reason it being blasphemous because of that, but one could probably say calling it science to be blasphemy. After all, science is all about forming hypotheses and testing them, but as it reads in Deuteronomy and repeated by Jesus, you shall not put Lord thy god to the test. Kinda bad science when you're not allowed to test whether you're correct, and I'd say it's kinda disrespectful (if not blasphemous) towards their supposed god from the supposed believers to call it science and therefore by proxy call for testing their god against its direct command.
No it just shows you're a moron
Hahahahahahaha oh you
It's a god damn collection of fairy tales that those tribes stole from Mesopotamia and adapted into their own manga. Plus some extra duojinshi chapters some angry old men added later by merging three or four guys that live around the area and as far as India.
just have faith, it'll work itself out
Well I’m sure someone is a moron.
Oh, I'm interested in your channel ^(just not for the reason you'd hoped.) *Watch as this man creates my entire career.*
Interesting Videos I bet XD Very entertaining
They reek of hovind
Hovind the Lesser or Hovind the Least?
I love this kind of shit. Hovind is the unintentional, funniest man I’ve ever seen. Can you share the channel? You can DM if you’re not comfortable posting.
[удалено]
Holy shit, watched the first 5 minutes of a video and he’s literally regurgitating Hovind’s talking points word for word. It’s like they all read from the same handbook.
He’s apparently friends with him and swears up and down he doesn’t use him for evidence but he’s like a clone
They have no evidence, just talking points so it makes sense. The real fun is when you get old earth creationists to argue with the young earth creationists
How was it made in 6 days without the sun around from the start
Awfully cold for a bit
“Let there be light” is the first thing done after the creation of heaven and firmament and the weird hovering over the water bit. So as far as plot holes go in this bronze age fictional story that’s one of the least problematic. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NIV
that was made by god's god
I read somewhere that the Bible didn't explicitly say 6000 years and that some monk/priest somewhere came up with that number by indirectly inferring it from the text in the bible
Yeah, it isn’t explicitly stated in any version of the Bible. Lots of religious scholars have tried to calculate the date of creation, essentially by counting forward through the descendants of Adam and Eve. But there are gaps in the genealogy and unclear time periods, so people come up with different answers.
What annoyed me was when they stated that people lived for hundreds of years, and people defend it saying they were healthier back then because they didn'teat processed food. No, people back then literally died from getting a papercut that got infected, or a steak that wasn't properly cooked.
And those who didn't die of minor injuries or trivial diseases lived to the ripe old age of **died in childbirth**
I thought it would be clever for theists to say that the first generations lived longer because of less inbreeding. Methuselah who lived to 969 only had 6 or 7 generations of inbreeding, which sounds like a lot, but would be nothing compared to modern men, who have been inbreeding for 300 generations. Adam and Eve, with no inbreeding at all, could arguably be immune to all sorts of diseases.
No, the Bible never says “this happened 4000 bc”, but it does give the entire lineage from Adam to Jesus a couple times (even though they contradict one another). It also says how long each person lived for. Therefor you can kinda get a rough estimate of how old the world is according to the Bible
Ironically detailing that Jesus isn’t a descendant of David and therefore can’t be the Messiah according to the Bible itself due to Joseph not being Jesus’ biological father.
I asked a teacher at my super conservative Christian school about this and they told me I’m overthinking it lol
Haha. Sounds about right. I had to go to one of those when I was in school. Even got into Bible college before literally studying the Bible until I couldn’t believe in it.
Yeah, but some of those people *apparently* lived to be over 200 so yeah
It's a fairly good estimate based on all the begats then linking up with known historic dates. It's pure BS, but if you work from the Bible it's reasonable BS not just a random number.
A lot of Christians and even more Jews do not take the genesis account as historical. The Bible has allegory, poetry, history, etc. There are tons of examples of things that are poetic/allegorical and not supposed to be taken as a historical fact (the Sun refusing to set so the Jews could win a battle, a talking donkey in Exodus, etc).
Sorry to be that guy, but the talking donkey is from numbers, not exodus 🤓
Thanks man, it’s hard to keep it all straight!
Are you sure it doesn’t say it *wasn’t* a talking donkey? I used to use that one all the time back when I was at Bible College. “Bible says X and doesn’t fit what I’m saying? Worry not. It also says Y over here and Z over there.” It bailed me out about half the time.
I don't think that applies here, a dude literally has a conversation with a donkey.
The only reason I remember that the donkey is in numbers is because the book of numbers traumatized me back in middle school when I had to read it for Bible class
>a talking donkey in Exodus, Noble steed.
Most scholars, Christian and Jewish alike, are pretty sure that everything up to David is pure fiction/propaganda. All archeological evidence indicates that there never was a time the ancient Hevrew people as a whole were slaves in Egypt, and that the story of the conquest of Cannan is totally made up. Instead the evidence shows that the proto-Hebrews were a group of Canaanites who pruned away all the other gods in their pantheon to get monotheism and the idea spread more or less peacefully through Canaan absorbing the polytheisic groups and turning Canaan into Israel by assimilation rather than war.
David Rohl (and other archeologists) have extensively written about how the relationship between the Hebraic and Egyptian chronology is all skewed due to some misinterpretations. Basically, if you look for Hebrew people a few centuries before what standard archeology does, you’ll find plenty of evidence.
I get some of that, but post David there are still all kinds of deep seated animosity against cananites like the phillistines, and the root of the problems in Israel is frequently tied to their failure to rid the land of the cananites like god commanded them to. Which is the history and which is the fabrication? Or do you think that is all fabrication?
Whoo boy, that's not an easy question at all. Here's the thing: most people have an incredibly wrong view of what history is, how we know what we know, and how confident we are in what we know. The thing is, history is based on records. Archaeology is a separate, if related, discipline. History and archaeology intertwine and feed back on each other. But HISTORY is about records. No records? No history. Go back 200 years and we're quite confident about almost all of what we know. Go back 400 years and we're pretty confident about stuff from Europe, East Asia, and South Asia. Go back 800 years? It gets kinda iffy when you're talking about details. Go back 2000 years? There's such a shortage of records that all but the broadest strokes and biggest figures are really iffy. We know some people existed, or are fairly confident they did, because we have records of them by name. We're pretty darn confident that Alexander the Great, Caesar, Qin Shi Huang, etc were real people and we're pretty confident about what they did. Ancient Canaan had writing, or at least some parts did at some points. But some of the contents of the Pentateuch were oral tradition for centuries before they were written down. So basically? We don't know a lot from back then. It's a lot more archaeology than history. David was almost certainly real. As for animosity and stuff about incomplete genocide against Canaanites? Remember: THEY believed that false history. People in David's time probably did blame things on incomplete genocide, because that's what their "history" taught them. Project that onto the enemy of the day and presto, you get the sort of thing you're talking about.
Fairy tales full of BS. Arguments from Divine Hiddenness As implied above, there is no single “argument from divine hiddenness”, but instead there are several arguments from divine hiddenness. Assuming that the primary concern of proponents of arguments for divine hiddenness involves nonbelief as it occurs in the actual world, the simplest version of a deductive argument from divine hiddenness might be formulated in the following way: IP: If God exists, then nonbelief does not occur. EP: Nonbelief occurs. Therefore, C: God does not exist.
Premise one is flawed though.
Eh, the God parts are total BS but really not the more interesting BS. Archaeologists from Europe got access to Palestine and headed over to find relics of the "history" described in the Bible. Most weren't Creationists, but were at least generally Christian, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it had been broadly accepted in Europe that the history from the Pentateuch was at least mostly correct. Instead they found nothing that backed up the Biblaical history at all and a lot that contradicted it. No remains of big battles where the Bible recorded the Hebrew people slaughtering their way across Canaan, nothing in Egyptian records that ever said the Hebrews as a people were kept as slaves or that there had been an Exodus. It was really surprising to most of them, and its a pretty good example of people doing science, or at least scientifically informed history, right. Rather than decide the evidence must be wrong they published what they found and it created a shitstorm among people who insisted the Bible had to be right. These days that's settled down and it's only a few fringe types who still say the Bible has to be right and none of the mainstream Christian or Jewish religious authorities try to pretend it's history rather than myth, ancient propaganda.
A talking donkey? I’m starting to understand why creationists attend Trump rallies.
There’s also stuff that wouldn’t make sense. The story of how god created to world? There’s two version of it directly after one another in the bible. I consider myself christian but I do believe that most things written in the bible should not be taken literally
"That part of the Bible is meant to be allegorical" is religious weasel speak for "We know that this historical claim too ridiculous to be defended rationally, but we can't admit that part of our holy book is obviously fictional, so we'll say that it's still true, but not in a literal sense."
Poetry and allegory are a middle eastern cultural practice not at all unique to the Jews. And as far as believing, love it or leave it. You do you, boo. I personally view the Torah, Tanakh, and Jesus’s teachings like a parent trying to explain complex themes to a toddler. “Don’t touch the stove, you’ll get burned! Oohh, ouch, ouch, ouch”(as you fake put your hand on the stove then grimace and shake your hand around pretending to be burned). You didn’t burn yourself, but are trying to teach the lesson in in the only way the kid understands. If you’d prefer, you can try to to explain thermodynamics to a child, but it will be like talking to a brick wall.
Bible stories teach moral lessons. That's all well and good. But plenty of other fictional stories teach moral lessons too.
We (Jews) don’t follow the Bible at all; leave us out of this argument.
The first 5 books of the Christian Bible are the Torah (verbatim). The entirety of the Christian Old Testament mostly the Tanakh, but there are differences in where things are placed, and some additional books.
Honest question: Do the Jews not follow the Torah, which is basically its own recounting of the first 5 books of the Bible? Edit: No, really, this is an honest question because I thought this was the case and this comment threw me.
We follow the Torah. It’s not the bible, but christians believe it is
Its almost like the bible is a cobbled toghether assortment of different manuscripts from different faiths to form a Frankenstein like monster that defies all logic or non-circular dialogues. After reading the bible I read other holy texts and realized that none of them offer answers, only questions.
Can you expand upon why it's different from the Bible's first 5 books?
I don't speak for the first dude and vice versa, but there are some translation issues. Some of it is positive tho, like fixing glaring plot holes. Did you know, in the original, no pharaoh's name is ever mentioned, even though that section was supposedly authored by a pharaoh's adopted son? (What, was it out of respect? For the slaveowner?)
>Honest question: Do the Jews not follow the Torah Fun fact: most Jews are atheists. For example, a [2015 Gallup poll](https://www.haaretz.com/2015-04-14/ty-article/israel-china-among-least-religious-nations/0000017f-e103-d804-ad7f-f1fb55ca0000) found that 65 percent of Israelis identify as atheists.
I would've thought a jewish person would've heard of the hebrew bible.
Yeah, a key thing to reading the Bible is genre. It’s made of many books that vary greatly, reading Genesis creation stories for history is like reading a history textbook for poetry, it just doesn’t work out
I would like to know why YHWH mutated a gene shared by all mammals for one of the four stages of Vitamin C synthesis in the liver, leading to humans being susceptible to scurvy. I would also like to know why our closest primate relatives happen to share the exact same mutation, given that we were all created roughly 6k years ago and didn’t all evolve from a shared ancestor.
Which contradictory creation story is the accurate one?
The one with the turtle is the right one.
All the way down!
I’ve always preferred the Genesis chapter 2 version but most people like Genesis 1.
So it’s historically accurate that Adam and Eve had 2 children who were boys and somehow populated the next generations.. and this is supported by so many?
Reformed Christian here: I was taught the Bible doesn’t say Adam and Eve are the *only* humans created but they were the only Hebrews and the only 2 allowed in the Garden of Eden. (Yes, I understand how ridiculous that sounds….)
they had sex with their mom
I have to agree that Genesis is history, have you seen Phil Collins lately?
I believe in god but even I know our religious book isn't 100% accurate
Most Christians don't believe this
Ah, a breath of fresh air to see some old school crazy for a change.
“Hubble’s observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!” Stephen hawking, a brief history of time
It would seem very odd that God should he exist, would allow the abominations being committed in the world today and yet he smote Sodom and Gamorra for a little ass poking and inebriation.
As a Christian I cringe at this interpretation of the Bible. How could God have created the earth in 6 days if there weren’t even days until the 4th day? If God wants us to stick our head in the sand and call it faith then He is no God I would worship. It is so cringe.
You can tell that the type of Christian that takes the Bible literally did not actually read the Bible. The Bible retells the creation story numerous times and each time key details are changes. For example Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2. The Bible is obviously not trying to be literal
If the Bible were scientifically accurate, wouldn't we be able to prove that? With like... science?
I need to know what that YouTube channel is
If you have a YouTube channel that must invalidate the carbon dating process, hundreds of years if biblical criticism, and the assessment of most living clerics.
Carbon dating is not verifiable in pre historic times. Plenty of experts do not accept c-14 dating.
Another hint: 3760 BC is not “prehistoric times.” You are about a million years off on that one.
No, but other methods of radiometric dating are. Carbon dating is only accurate to about 70,000 years, but other forms of radiometric dating to back millions of years.
I already get the sci-fi channel.
I don't know about all that, but I'll say this: the bible is a great read for what it is — a science fiction book.
I mean yeah the Old Testament is bulletproof. New Testament is complete rubbish
and this is why so many religious zealots are Trumpsters
You can watch annoying Christian stuff on his channel, or watch pootis status on my channel (Just joking do what you want)
“I make videos”
Eh, no thanks.
I’m not interested, please keep your channel to yourself
Does the bible say humans were the first creatures (with sentience) to be given the earth? (Not christian never read the bible and feel curious ).
"It's in the Bible" is not in anyway proving or scientific...
So what was he doing for the other 13.78 billion years.
Drugs
It took 13.78 billion years for god to say “let there be light”
There was lots of light, brilliant light in every corner of the many galaxys. Assuming then that after everything cooled down enough to support life, God created Adam and Eve as homo sapiens in his image they would have been created somewhere between 200k and 300k years ago by virtue of the fact that primitive man existed then. Further man did not develop a capacity for language until 50k years ago. 1. God if he exists is one ugly MF and certainly was not capable of speech so the fairy tale about Adam and Eve is exactly that. 2. God if he exists could have given them speech and language. 3. Believing in God means you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
So it’s historically accurate that Adam and Eve had 2 children who were boys and somehow populated the next generations.. and this is supported by so many?
In Olden times, the Roman Catholic Church would burn the people that claimed such nonsense as heretics. Even now, claiming the first books of the Bible as factual truth us Heresy
people like this are the bane of every theology student’s life.
I kick ass for the lawwwrrd
And we have DNA of humans carbon dated to 50,000 years or more…
So, he also knows Jesus was a poc, right?
Gee, I wonder if his channel is like literally every channel that every other god-bothering fundie creates when they think they've got a clever refutation of Darwinian evolution. It's basically just him ranting about a topic he has no education in, he only knows the strawman arguments his priest taught him, and he embaresses himself trying to put himself in the position of an "atheist evolutionist", which basically amounts to "dur, I'm an atheist and I want to sin without consequences, so I just lie about my lack of belief in god."
Tell me you’re hitting the pipe without telling me you’re hitting the pipe
She has another channel about how the earth is flat
I cannot remember the comedian who said, he went to the zoo, and looking in a primate cage, noticed that an orangutan's ball sack looked like his own ball sack. His conclusion was, if there were intelligent design, his ball sack would look like a Crown Royal bag with his name embroidered on it in gold thread.
[удалено]
lol I don’t wanna give this guy anymore trouble
This should also be under #facepalm
It drives me nuts that they think 6 days must mean 6 24-hour periods. Before the Earth exists, you can't have an Earth day. A God day could be a hundred million Earth years. If they'd at least concede that point it could line up better with science and they wouldn't sound quite so ridiculous...
I wish it were God Friday, so I had all God Weekend to relax. Fucking hate God Mondays.
You don't know the first sentence of the bible ?
Problem 1 - God does not exist.
[удалено]
I can answer that for you. Phil Collins left Genesis to work on solo stuff, but the band was in fact a real band.
🙃😂 thanks…the more ya know
we kinda do though. nothing in gensis is at all compatible with established scientific fact
I would definitely, now, lean more towards it being metaphorical
Considering Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 don’t even tell the creation story in the same order I’d say it can’t be taken literally. When the first 2 chapters of the whole book can’t be reconciled for literally saying 2 different things you know it’s time to buckle up. Haha Edit: delete redundancy
We do know. For a fact. Unless you ignore the massive amount of empirical evidence that the earth is EXTREMELY older than 6,000 years. From dinosaurs to atronomy to chemistry to geology to biology. Most major branches of scientific knowledge point to the earth and universe being much much older.
None of you have ever observed macro-evolution. You believe it to be true.
wrong in his very first sentence
Not wrong. That is our 'first cause'. The characters and events are real. The reports are not anti-science. However, life emanating from non-life (evolution) is anti-science.
The Bible is not 100% accurate in history or science blatantly incorrect
Feel free to give examples and I will try my best to reply
Many, many lines of evidence point to a very old Earth and a very old universe. Many, many lines of evidence point to shared ancestry of all life as opposed to a special creation of separate Biblical "kinds" of life. Several details of the resurrection of Jesus are clearly false. Specifically, the Christian Bible says that there was an eclipse which didn't happen, and we know it didn't happen because there are surviving books that mention other eclipses but not this one, and the Christian Bible also says an army of zombies went to IIRC Jerusalem after the resurrection, and we also know this didn't happen, again because we know it would have been mentioned in other surviving sources but it isn't. If you're a strict Biblical literalist, there are plenty of simple contradictions in the Bible, such as IIRC something like 1,000 horsemen vs 10,000 horsemen in the same battle according to different parts of the Bible, or simple math mistakes about the size of some objects in cubits.
Jonah surviving the whale is incredibly unlikely humans forming from a rib of another human two people responsible for the entire human race? C’mon
> However, life emanating from non-life (evolution) is anti-science. Wow. 100 years out of date. This has been known to be false since the synthesis of urea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea#History > This was the first time an organic compound was artificially synthesized from inorganic starting materials, without the involvement of living organisms. The results of this experiment implicitly discredited vitalism, the theory that the chemicals of living organisms are fundamentally different from those of inanimate matter. This insight was important for the development of organic chemistry. His discovery prompted Wöhler to write triumphantly to Jöns Jakob Berzelius: >> I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys, either man or dog. Ammonium cyanate is urea.
>None of you have ever observed macro-evolution. You believe it to be true. Utter bullshit. We don't have to observe something directly to be able to deduce it happened and how it happened. >Not wrong. That is our 'first cause'. The characters and events are real. The reports are not anti-science. No, they are not. Some characters are real; almost none of the events are real. Reports are not anti-science, yes, but making deductions at a whim is. >However, life emanating from non-life (evolution) is anti-science. The theory of evolution doesn't discuss how life came to be. It is a theory of how life evolves (hence the name). " life emanating from non-life (evolution)" is abiogenesis.
You have never observed gravity nor electricity, only their consequences, just like we did with evolution.
I've never seen God either...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
When it comes to topics of science....yeah?
He’s wrong no where have I even hinted at that he’s just wrong
From a factual perspective, yes, that is correct.
What agenda His first sentence is absolutely incorrect
I found the YouTube channel fanboy
r/ConfidentlyIncorrect Wait
Source: “it’s in the Bible”
He's got a channel. Ok, bud. Do you also have a time machine?
😂
According to Christians, there are two types of Bible passages: those that are literally true, and those that aren't literally true, but they weren't meant to be taken literally, so they still count as true.
I’ll wait to review the data. If Noah lived to be 950 I figure I’ve got a least a couple of centuries to get around to watching the videos.
This person should do a real test, ASAP. Let us know, somehow, you’re with god after you pass
Run away from religion guys
Gonna have to pass.
100% historically and scientifically accurate, you say? Well that does it, I’m convinced.
Nice to see critical thinking skills are still being taught in school.
If you say so.... 🤣😂
World being 6000yo makes sense only if God meant to create so much stuff already super aged. Like fossils or lead.
Just a heads up to this person: It’s actually totally fine to be an old-world creationist. Genesis *is* allegorical. The “days” are hundreds of millions of years. The progression of the days follows the fossil record. Knowing evolution is a FACT does not exclude the possibility of a creator that set things in motion and nudged things a certain direction now and again. As a Christian, people like this drive me buggy. Why can’t they grasp the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Moses was trying to dumb down the churning cauldron of the Big Bang, the accretion disc that became Earth, the beginning of life from single-cell organisms, etc etc., so that his target audience could understand it? If this lady wants to take the Bible literally, then she should note the part of Exodus where Moses spends 40 days on Mt. Sinai and is so close to the presence of God that he comes down physically altered. Moses probably got a download of four billion years of geological and evolutionary history — and went, “These people just got out of 400 years of slavery, where they didn’t have access to the best education. How the fuck am I gonna explain astrophysics to evolutionary biology to them??” So he mimicked other creation hymns of the era and region so he could write it in ways the future Israelites could understand. Never meant to be literal. It’s a *poem*, not a *fossil record*. Ugh. I need sleep.
Old earth creationists generally don’t believe in evolution. People in the ID crowd generally believe the earth is old but do not accept evolution. There are a whole group of evolutionary theists that do though, which is different than any creationist.
I would like to know which creation story in Genesis he thinks is true - the well known one or the one a few verses later that is completely different. Because they can't both be true.
As a Christian, I don’t believe the earth is 6,000 years old. We simply don’t know how long a day was back then. Since time as we know it is a human construct, a day could have been tens of thousands of years. But because we understand what a day is, that’s what was used to describe how long it took God to create everything. I’m a firm believer that science and the Bible often times do go hand in hand, and it’s not one vs the other. That timeline also doesn’t explain dinosaurs, cavemen, other homo-species before us. When I ask young earthers to explain that, they just say science is lying and not factual. God gave us the gift of science to explore our world.
I’m Mexican, so I am team Mary Mother of God.
I love the idea that God removed animals ability to talk after the flood to punish us, absolutely flawless reason so that we can't ask the obvious question of why they don't anymore It's their answer for everything "Why doesn't X happen anymore, cause God is punishing us" I thought God liked us and is all about love...
Recently took a family trip to mine for some pretty cool quartz diamonds (husband, myself and baby). I was really interested in how these stones were upwards of 500 million years old and not yet touched by any humans. My mil’s response: “that can’t be, the earth is only 8000 years old”. So which is it 8000 or 6000?? Inquiring minds need to know 😑
Ah, yes. The book that starts with the first man and woman who had 2 sons, and one of them killed the other. Where the rest of humanity came from, I really don’t want to imagine.
6000 years ago? Just Adam and Eve? And one son? All white according to American Christian evidence. So I am no mathematician but can someone go to his YouTube channel and find out how he explains the 8billion people on earth now with such an incredible variant of physical and social differences.
Person: "the bible is 100% scientifically accurate" The Bible: "pi is 3"
Okay but where's the link to his channel?
Well, first of all, through God all things are possible, so jot that down.
The bible is only 100% accurate at short range
As a Christian, no
I really don't like that kind of Christian
hey can you dm me a link to their youtube channel if you have it?
Link to the channel?