Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Quizzimodo

Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

Archbishop Ussher is both lauded & reviled in equal measure for his dating of the Earth based on the chronology of the Bible

Lauded by the YECs for his "disproval" of evolution
Reviled by science for his methods

But is this fair?

Although clunky by modern methods he WAS using the scientific methods available to him at the time

He was writing 200 years before Darwin.

This is of course speculation but isn't it possible that such a renowned scholar as Usher would have amended his view if presented with Origin Of Species, fossils etc?
Jim

Agreed - to a point.
Even the scholars of Usher's day were disturbed by the stuff people were digging up in Africa, the Middle East and Europe which was starting to make it pretty obvious that creation happened before 4004 BC.
Indeed, a CofS minister, John McWilliam, had already suggested that earth had to have been thousands of years older than Genesis suggested...and that was twenty years before Usher was born.
JamesJah

Not many read the Genesis account with understanding, it is  just the same for most of the scripture.

If scripture does not suit them it is discarded or degraded, so as not to have any effect on their lives any way, so what is new here?

Genesis does not say how old the earth is. neither does it give twenty four hours to a creative day, it does give evening and morning which humans automatically assume equals a day, but later scripture shows that in the mind of the creator that is not the case.

How long does it take to create a new animal?

Who knows where to find some reliable evidence?
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Not many read the Genesis account with understanding, it is  just the same for most of the scripture.

If scripture does not suit them it is discarded or degraded, so as not to have any effect on their lives any way, so what is new here?

Genesis does not say how old the earth is. neither does it give twenty four hours to a creative day, it does give evening and morning which humans automatically assume equals a day, but later scripture shows that in the mind of the creator that is not the case.

How long does it take to create a new animal?

Who knows where to find some reliable evidence?


Where's TW when you need him?
Jim

Since using Scripture as an indicator of history is wrong - as JamesJah has agreed, then it is, indeed disappointing when some sects try to do that very thin whwen arguing that Scripture is an accurate measure of history in calculating their proposed prophesies!

(even though they do it wrong...)
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:


How long does it take to create a new animal?


I'm not sure.

Do you know?
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:


Who knows where to find some reliable evidence?


...for what?
Jim

James:
I am in full agreement that one cannot use Scripture to determine the date of creation: that is not its' purpose.
Given that one cannot rely on Scripture alone as a chronology of the ancient world, then, why is the WTBTS so convinced of its' accuracy in the matter of the fall of Jerusalem, but rejects it in determining the date for creation?
cyberman

JamesJah wrote:


How long does it take to create a new animal?

 


Well, if animals are anything like us, I guess it varies. Sometimes it's all over far too quickly, if you're on form it can take all night.
Quizzimodo

cyberman wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


How long does it take to create a new animal?

 


Well, if animals are anything like us, I guess it varies. Sometimes it's all over far too quickly, if you're on form it can take all night.


JamesJah

Pupa varies in time periods but they only take months not millions of year to change from a land walking animal into a flying creature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa
LeClerc

Morning James

JamesJah wrote:
Pupa varies in time periods but they only take months not millions of year to change from a land walking animal into a flying creature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa


James, is it the same Nephesh ?

Regards

LeClerc
JamesJah

LeClerc wrote:
Morning James

JamesJah wrote:
Pupa varies in time periods but they only take months not millions of year to change from a land walking animal into a flying creature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa


James, is it the same Nephesh ?

Regards

LeClerc


Who know what a Hebrew calls those little grubs, one thing is for certain they have to be completely programmed to change the way they do?


Far as I know all living things are a what it was you said.{Nephesh?
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Pupa varies in time periods but they only take months not millions of year to change from a land walking animal into a flying creature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa


How long does it take to create the land walking animal which forms the pupa?
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Pupa varies in time periods but they only take months not millions of year to change from a land walking animal into a flying creature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa


How long does it take to create the land walking animal which forms the pupa?


Incubation periods very do they not?


Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Pupa varies in time periods but they only take months not millions of year to change from a land walking animal into a flying creature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa


How long does it take to create the land walking animal which forms the pupa?


Incubation periods very do they not?



How long does it take to create the original land walking animal which forms the pupa?
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Pupa varies in time periods but they only take months not millions of year to change from a land walking animal into a flying creature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa


How long does it take to create the land walking animal which forms the pupa?


Incubation periods very do they not?



How long does it take to create the original land walking animal which forms the pupa?


Gestation periods of eggs varies.

How long to create an egg that also varies from one day.

And that is a twenty four hour day.


Who created this in less than a day????


Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Pupa varies in time periods but they only take months not millions of year to change from a land walking animal into a flying creature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa


How long does it take to create the land walking animal which forms the pupa?


Incubation periods very do they not?



How long does it take to create the original land walking animal which forms the pupa?


Gestation periods of eggs varies.

How long to create an egg that also varies from one day.

And that is a twenty four hour day.

How long does it take to create the original land walking animal which laid the egg which hatches the animal which forms the pupa?
Richie

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

Quizzimodo wrote:
Archbishop Ussher is both lauded & reviled in equal measure for his dating of the Earth based on the chronology of the Bible

Lauded by the YECs for his "disproval" of evolution
Reviled by science for his methods

But is this fair?

Although clunky by modern methods he WAS using the scientific methods available to him at the time

He was writing 200 years before Darwin.

This is of course speculation but isn't it possible that such a renowned scholar as Usher would have amended his view if presented with Origin Of Species, fossils etc?


For the era he was writing in and the conclusion he arrived at it is unreasonable to revile him.

He was using the bible as a book of fact, and whilst large chunks of the bible are relative hogwash, there are other sections which are more a recording of Jewish history than they are religious text.

Simply 'counting' back from an accepted start point is not in and of itself wrong, we do this for many cultures where we have a verifiable date and then work backwards by reigns etc looking to tie in with the surrounding cultures.

His conclusions were wrong, in that the Earth is only 6000 years old but his methodology for the time were not wide of the mark

The main difference between his conclusions and scientific conclusions though is that where a scientific conclusion is later proven to be wrong/false the conclusion if amended to take account of the new information.

His conclusions have been stuck to rigidly (by some) in the face of better more accurate information that has been obtained since
JamesJah

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

Richie wrote:
Quizzimodo wrote:
Archbishop Ussher is both lauded & reviled in equal measure for his dating of the Earth based on the chronology of the Bible

Lauded by the YECs for his "disproval" of evolution
Reviled by science for his methods

But is this fair?

Although clunky by modern methods he WAS using the scientific methods available to him at the time

He was writing 200 years before Darwin.

This is of course speculation but isn't it possible that such a renowned scholar as Usher would have amended his view if presented with Origin Of Species, fossils etc?


For the era he was writing in and the conclusion he arrived at it is unreasonable to revile him.

He was using the bible as a book of fact, and whilst large chunks of the bible are relative hogwash, there are other sections which are more a recording of Jewish history than they are religious text.

Simply 'counting' back from an accepted start point is not in and of itself wrong, we do this for many cultures where we have a verifiable date and then work backwards by reigns etc looking to tie in with the surrounding cultures.

His conclusions were wrong, in that the Earth is only 6000 years old but his methodology for the time were not wide of the mark

The main difference between his conclusions and scientific conclusions though is that where a scientific conclusion is later proven to be wrong/false the conclusion if amended to take account of the new information.

His conclusions have been stuck to rigidly (by some) in the face of better more accurate information that has been obtained since


The bible was written so the meek of the earth could understand it but the dogs and the unfaithful would be left to receive the reward of all their foolishness.


There is no place where the bible gives the earth six thousand years of history, the confusion comes from listing to intellectuals who think they know better than scripture when in reality they are as new bourn babes to the purpose of the will of the Almighty ruler of the universe.


If one reads the first words of Genesis it just sais that God created the heavens and the earth it does not say when or how long ago, it is all just assumptions by people who read too fast.
Jim

I agree, James....
The Bible was not meant as a history book.
Despite certain sects claiming it says otherwise - e.g. the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BC...calculated incorrectly from Scripture and shown to be hogwash by history.
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
I agree, James....
The Bible was not meant as a history book.
Despite certain sects claiming it says otherwise - e.g. the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BC...calculated incorrectly from Scripture and shown to be hogwash by history.


By whom and when?

The seed of the promise has been followed in scripture from Adam down to Jesus do closely that the opposition had  tried on a number of occasions to destroy it long before it could arrive. What you would not have noticed in your lack of understanding is that the bible shows how the seed was protected in spite of the oppose right down to the Christ.

So the bible history of Jesus from Adam is sound and his critics and their rambling proved to be the ones with no knowledge of the Almighties purpose or any of his dealings.
Jim

So:
Let me get this straight;
You don't accept Usher (and Genesis-Malachi) as a chronologically feasible way of calculating the date of creation, James?
With you so far - 'cos that is not the purpose of Scripture - its' purpose is to prepare the way for Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.
I can live with that.

Now, you claim that Scripture, which is not an accurate measure of chronology, can nevertheless be used as an accurate measure of history.
Er......
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
So:
Let me get this straight;
You don't accept Usher (and Genesis-Malachi) as a chronologically feasible way of calculating the date of creation, James?
With you so far - 'cos that is not the purpose of Scripture - its' purpose is to prepare the way for Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.
I can live with that.

Now, you claim that Scripture, which is not an accurate measure of chronology, can nevertheless be used as an accurate measure of history.
Er......


Creation and genealogy are two different things.

people who have no respect for their creator cannot be taken very seriously now can they?

The average person lives such a short life his knowledge of creation and history has to be quite minimal.

Luke 3:23-38
When Jesus began his work, he was about 30 years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, son of Ma′ath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda, son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of A′di, son of Cosam, son of El·ma′dam, son of Er, son of Jesus, son of Eliazer, son of Jo′rim, son of Mat′that, son of Le′vi, son of Symeon, son of Judas, son of Joseph, son of Jo′nam, son of E·li′a·kim, son of Melea, son of Men′na, son of Mat′ta·tha, son of Nathan, son of David, 32 son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sal′mon, son of Nah′shon, son of Am·min′a·dab, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Na′hor, son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of E′ber, son of Shelah, son of Ca·inan, son of A·pach′shad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of La′mech, son of Me·thu′se·lah, son of E′noch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, son of Enosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.


Genesis 5:3-12
Adam lived for 130 years and then became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and he named him Seth. 4 After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam’s life amounted to 930 years, and then he died. 6 Seth lived for 105 years and then became father to E′nosh. 7 After becoming father to Enosh, Seth lived for 807 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth amounted to 912 years, and then he died. 9 E′nosh lived for 90 years and then became father to enan. 10 After becoming father to Kenan, Enosh lived for 815 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 11 So all the days of ′nosh amounted to 905 years, and then he died. 12 Kenan lived for 70 years and then became father to


hectare
Richie

Glad it wasn't just me that thought that James was attempting a bit of having & eating his cake.
Leonard James

Anybody who believes that human beings have ever lived for hundreds of years is seriously deluded.
JamesJah

Leonard James wrote:
Anybody who believes that human beings have ever lived for hundreds of years is seriously deluded.


Typical remark from a sad people you are just entering a period where humans are starting to live longer again t is obvious you have not noticed yet.

The ages are shown of those who carried the seed and who they were related too so it is now possible to see how Jehovah kept the seed safe down till Jesus something that obviously is of no importance to some?
Leonard James

JamesJah wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Anybody who believes that human beings have ever lived for hundreds of years is seriously deluded.


Typical remark from a sad people you are just entering a period where humans are starting to live longer again t is obvious you have not noticed yet.

The ages are shown of those who carried the seed and who they were related too so it is now possible to see how Jehovah kept the seed safe down till Jesus something that obviously is of no importance to some?


Oh sure! And a pig just flew past my window.

Thank goodness the number of people prepared to believe such rot is diminishing fast.
Jim

The first issue. James, is with your reasoning.
If you believe these genaeologies are accurate, that, as Usher suggests, takes youu to 4004 BC.
OK with that?
Now, whether you accept, as the YECs do, that creation occured then or , as I do, some 14 billion years earlier, is moot.
The point is, that a complete reading of Genesis would lead you to reach the conclusion, were you to take it as literature, that Adam lived then...

Which is, of course, rubbish, since we have a superabundance of Homo sapiens development from c200,000 Bc to the present, and a superfluity of evidence for human proto-civilisation in the Near East from before 6000BC!
Now, either the Genesis figures are innaccurate by several dozen centuries, there are a whole bunch of broken threads in a supposedly accurate genaeology, or....

As I do, reject the genaeology and year length as literal, based on the fact that Egyptian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Chinese, Celtic....in fact virtually every ethnic group, had legends of an ancestry which boasted extraordinary longevity (In the case of Egypt, one Osirian myth has Osiris living three thousand years).
Why should the ancient ancestors of the Hebrews be in any way different to these cultures, given that their 'chosen' status started well into the period of known history?
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
The first issue. James, is with your reasoning.
If you believe these genaeologies are accurate, that, as Usher suggests, takes youu to 4004 BC.
OK with that?
Now, whether you accept, as the YECs do, that creation occured then or , as I do, some 14 billion years earlier, is moot.
The point is, that a complete reading of Genesis would lead you to reach the conclusion, were you to take it as literature, that Adam lived then...

Which is, of course, rubbish, since we have a superabundance of Homo sapiens development from c200,000 Bc to the present, and a superfluity of evidence for human proto-civilisation in the Near East from before 6000BC!
Now, either the Genesis figures are innaccurate by several dozen centuries, there are a whole bunch of broken threads in a supposedly accurate genaeology, or....

As I do, reject the genaeology and year length as literal, based on the fact that Egyptian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Chinese, Celtic....in fact virtually every ethnic group, had legends of an ancestry which boasted extraordinary longevity (In the case of Egypt, one Osirian myth has Osiris living three thousand years).
Why should the ancient ancestors of the Hebrews be in any way different to these cultures, given that their 'chosen' status started well into the period of known history?


I have told you once but you obviously missed understood what was written.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now where does it say here when he did or how long it took?

When the creators came to earth to do the creating work what condition was the planet in?

And where does it say how long the day was?

How long is the judgement hour on religion?

How much of it is there left?








Click to see full size image
Jim

Nice Scripture, James.
What does it have to do with the accuracy of the genaeologies and year lengths in the Scriptures, though?  
Did Methuselah REALLY live to 969 years?
Or did Osiris live three thousand years?
In either case, prove or disprove it.
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:


How long is the judgement hour on religion?


Do you know and can you say?
(Using normal standard English and normal everyday terminology eg where an hour really is an hour and a day is 24 of those real ordinary hours which we experience right now? )



JamesJah wrote:




How much of it is there left?


Do you know and can you say?
(Using normal standard English and normal everyday terminology eg where an hour really is an hour and a day is 24 of those real ordinary hours which we experience right now? )

ps You well may have used scripture to determine your reply but really no need to quote it again , just normal conversational language to keep it simple eh?


pps
How long does it take to create the original land walking animal which laid the egg which hatches the animal which forms the pupa?
JamesJah

You have to be able to discern who Babylon the Great is first then move on from there.


Revelation 18:10, 11
They will stand at a distance because of their fear of her torment and say: ‘Too bad, too bad, you great city, Babylon you strong city, because in one hour your judgment has arrived!’ 11Also, the merchants of the earth are weeping and mourning over her, because there is no one to buy their full cargo anymore,


Click to see full size image
Jim

...which has diddly squat to do with the veracity or not of the genaeogies or lenght of lifespan in Scripture.
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
...which has diddly squat to do with the veracity or not of the genaeogies or lenght of lifespan in Scripture.


quite something all those without faith can do something about if they make a more diligent study of scripture so as to increase their faith

What did Jesus demonstrate to the people when he was here, was it not how reliable scripture is?

.
John 17:17
Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth.
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
You have to be able to discern who Babylon the Great is first then move on from there.


To which post are you responding James?
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


How long is the judgement hour on religion?


Do you know and can you say?
(Using normal standard English and normal everyday terminology eg where an hour really is an hour and a day is 24 of those real ordinary hours which we experience right now? )

obviously not 60 minuets now is it??



JamesJah wrote:




How much of it is there left?


Do you know and can you say?
(Using normal standard English and normal everyday terminology eg where an hour really is an hour and a day is 24 of those real ordinary hours which we experience right now? )
if 1000 years = a day how many = an hour?

ps You well may have used scripture to determine your reply but really no need to quote it again , just normal conversational language to keep it simple eh?


pps
How long does it take to create the original land walking animal which laid the egg which hatches the animal which forms the pupa?



Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:



JamesJah wrote:




How much of it is there left?


Do you know and can you say?
(Using normal standard English and normal everyday terminology eg where an hour really is an hour and a day is 24 of those real ordinary hours which we experience right now? )
if 1000 years = a day how many = an hour?



Well are you going to tell me or not?

How much of it is left?

(Using normal standard English and normal everyday terminology eg where an hour really is an hour and a day is 24 of those real ordinary hours which we experience right now? )
Jim

I note, with resignation, that you're in evasion mode - again - James.
You post scriptures in the vain hope that I will ignore the fact that you accept the literal years for the OT characters as part of your calculated timeline but don't accept a 4004 BC creation.
I note that you accept these years assigned to Biblical characters as truth while dismissing Usher???????
And I not that, while dismissing Usher's calculations, you still accept the codswallop your sect feeds you in relation to 607 BC.
Don't waste your time posting yet another text to try to lead me away from the blatant falsehood at the core of your sect's teaching on which its; repeated false parousia dates are based.
It won't wash.
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
I note, with resignation, that you're in evasion mode - again - James.
You post scriptures in the vain hope that I will ignore the fact that you accept the literal years for the OT characters as part of your calculated timeline but don't accept a 4004 BC creation.
I note that you accept these years assigned to Biblical characters as truth while dismissing Usher???????
And I not that, while dismissing Usher's calculations, you still accept the codswallop your sect feeds you in relation to 607 BC.
Don't waste your time posting yet another text to try to lead me away from the blatant falsehood at the core of your sect's teaching on which its; repeated false parousia dates are based.
It won't wash.


It was worked out some time ago by the WT based on the length of the last day which was when Jehovah rested from creation.

Jehovah is still in his Sabbath so it was reckoned that had to be seven thousand years long, being there was at least the thousand year reign of the Christ to go before the Sabbath finished.

That is what scriptures that I have posted to you in the past showed, so if the Sabbath is seven thousand years long then all the other creative days needed to be the same length, did they not?
Jim

The last day when Jekovah rested from creation?
Leaving aside your reference to a Roman Catholic monk's mistranslation of the tetragrammaton, that means 4004 BC.
So you now agree with Usher?
Wow, that was quite a u-turn, then!
So you accept Genesis IS chronologically acurate, and therefore you are a YEC?
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
The last day when Jekovah rested from creation?
Leaving aside your reference to a Roman Catholic monk's mistranslation of the tetragrammaton, that means 4004 BC.
So you now agree with Usher?
Wow, that was quite a u-turn, then!
So you accept Genesis IS chronologically acurate, and therefore you are a YEC?


No you have a shocking analytical mind, that jumps to a false surmise each time you check in due to your religious bios that keeps telling you it is ok to drink blood.

Check out what I have said about Genesis one.

All I have shown is that creation on the planet started  49 thousand years ago when the ash cloud around the earth was removed to let in the light.

OK????
Jim

Wow!
That must've given those men who lived 200,000 years ago a bit of a shock, then!
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
Wow!
That must've given those men who lived 200,000 years ago a bit of a shock, then!


Not half as the planet was in no condition to maintain life.



Jim

Which planet?
After all, there were hominids on Earth three million years ago!
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
Which planet?
After all, there were hominids on Earth three million years ago!


No such possibility the planet was too hot sulphurous and acidy.

This planet will not be a safe place to live for at least 1000 years.


Jim

Eh?
Three million years ago, this planet was not fundamentally dfferent regarding climate, than it is today.
It might have been slightly hotter two hundred million years ago, but not enough to prevent evolving life...four BILLION years ago, though...now you're talking sulphur!
As to volcanic activity?
geologically, there has been no increase in volcanic activity over the the past thirty or so million years.
Richie

Jim, you're putting up a valiant effort but you are trying to persuade one of the worst sandwich board idiots I've seen in a long long time

He is enough to make TW look like he is making sense and that in and of itself is a scary prospect
Jim

Aw, c'mon....he isn't THAT bad........is he?
BTW, my last post might have given the erroneous impression that I think life eveolved 200 million years ago.
This is, of course, wrong.
I believe there was an acceleration inevolution amidst the 'higher' species 200 million years ago.
I believe life started some 4.1 billion years ago.
I regret any doubt this might have cast as to my opinion.
bnabernard

Ah Jim, but do you regret any doubt it gives to Gods opinion?


bernard (hug)
Jim

Nope.
God's opinion?
John 3:16.
Simples!
Lexilogio

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

Quizzimodo wrote:
Archbishop Ussher is both lauded & reviled in equal measure for his dating of the Earth based on the chronology of the Bible

Lauded by the YECs for his "disproval" of evolution
Reviled by science for his methods

But is this fair?

Although clunky by modern methods he WAS using the scientific methods available to him at the time

He was writing 200 years before Darwin.

This is of course speculation but isn't it possible that such a renowned scholar as Usher would have amended his view if presented with Origin Of Species, fossils etc?



Ussher was conducting an exercise, which was in itself interesting.

Yesterday my son drew up a list of animals. It doesn't mean that animals not on the list don't exist.

My issue is not with Ussher, but with those who consider his work as "gospel" not to be argued with.

And as Jim said, the Bible is not intended as a historical document in that manner (although as any text it has historical value). Somehow I think God's intention was more that we pay attention to the behaviour we should attain - as opposed to trying to work out the dates for beginning and end. The idea isn't simply to turn round and repent 5 minutes before the end.
Jim

Absolutly, Lexi.
That's why I keep banging on to James when he starts this stuff on the 'return' of Christ in 1914. This was calculated by the pyramidiot Russell and subsequently jerrymandered by his successors by misinterpreting Scripture and trying to claim Scripture gives 607BC as the date of Jerusalem's fall.
Using some theological finger counting, they arrived at 1914 for the parousia*, and stuck with that date...despite the date being 100 percent wrong in every single respect...Jerusalem fell in 587/86 BC. However, if the JWs took THAT date, their 1914 date would be nonsense.


* other claimes for parousia(s) have been made...with equall riisable results. Scripture was never meant as a historical chronology, though there ARE points where the events in Scripture can be dated with extraordinary acurracy, coinciding with events in the Middle East.
JamesJah

bnabernard wrote:
Ah Jim, but do you regret any doubt it gives to Gods opinion?


bernard (hug)


Most here prefer to doge the opinion of the most High. even though their experience on this planet has been no time at all.

Even though man has made it hot for himself scripture does say he will not repent.

Revelation 16:8,
The fourth one poured out his bowl on the sun, and to the sun it was granted to scorch the people with fire. And the people were scorched by the great heat, but they blasphemed the name of God, who has the authority over these plagues,

and they did not repent and give glory to him.




Click to see full size image
JamesJah

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

Lexilogio wrote:
Quizzimodo wrote:
Archbishop Ussher is both lauded & reviled in equal measure for his dating of the Earth based on the chronology of the Bible

Lauded by the YECs for his "disproval" of evolution
Reviled by science for his methods

But is this fair?

Although clunky by modern methods he WAS using the scientific methods available to him at the time

He was writing 200 years before Darwin.

This is of course speculation but isn't it possible that such a renowned scholar as Usher would have amended his view if presented with Origin Of Species, fossils etc?



Ussher was conducting an exercise, which was in itself interesting.

Yesterday my son drew up a list of animals. It doesn't mean that animals not on the list don't exist.

My issue is not with Ussher, but with those who consider his work as "gospel" not to be argued with.

And as Jim said, the Bible is not intended as a historical document in that manner (although as any text it has historical value). Somehow I think God's intention was more that we pay attention to the behaviour we should attain - as opposed to trying to work out the dates for beginning and end. The idea isn't simply to turn round and repent 5 minutes before the end.


The Almighty God posts us a letter it is not his fault if many do not like the postman that delivers it now is it?
Lexilogio

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

JamesJah wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Quizzimodo wrote:
Archbishop Ussher is both lauded & reviled in equal measure for his dating of the Earth based on the chronology of the Bible

Lauded by the YECs for his "disproval" of evolution
Reviled by science for his methods

But is this fair?

Although clunky by modern methods he WAS using the scientific methods available to him at the time

He was writing 200 years before Darwin.

This is of course speculation but isn't it possible that such a renowned scholar as Usher would have amended his view if presented with Origin Of Species, fossils etc?



Ussher was conducting an exercise, which was in itself interesting.

Yesterday my son drew up a list of animals. It doesn't mean that animals not on the list don't exist.

My issue is not with Ussher, but with those who consider his work as "gospel" not to be argued with.

And as Jim said, the Bible is not intended as a historical document in that manner (although as any text it has historical value). Somehow I think God's intention was more that we pay attention to the behaviour we should attain - as opposed to trying to work out the dates for beginning and end. The idea isn't simply to turn round and repent 5 minutes before the end.


The Almighty God posts us a letter it is not his fault if many do not like the postman that delivers it now is it?


I think the postman is great. But the JW's don't even have a part to play in sorting it - let alone delivery.

But I do believe there are many legitimate delivery firms on the market. Just not yours.
Jim

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

God might post a letter...trouble is, shoving it back in the post box and asking for it to be delivered at a different time each time the postie shoves it through the letter box isn't how it works!
JamesJah

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Quizzimodo wrote:
Archbishop Ussher is both lauded & reviled in equal measure for his dating of the Earth based on the chronology of the Bible

Lauded by the YECs for his "disproval" of evolution
Reviled by science for his methods

But is this fair?

Although clunky by modern methods he WAS using the scientific methods available to him at the time

He was writing 200 years before Darwin.

This is of course speculation but isn't it possible that such a renowned scholar as Usher would have amended his view if presented with Origin Of Species, fossils etc?



Ussher was conducting an exercise, which was in itself interesting.

Yesterday my son drew up a list of animals. It doesn't mean that animals not on the list don't exist.

My issue is not with Ussher, but with those who consider his work as "gospel" not to be argued with.

And as Jim said, the Bible is not intended as a historical document in that manner (although as any text it has historical value). Somehow I think God's intention was more that we pay attention to the behaviour we should attain - as opposed to trying to work out the dates for beginning and end. The idea isn't simply to turn round and repent 5 minutes before the end.


The Almighty God posts us a letter it is not his fault if many do not like the postman that delivers it now is it?


I think the postman is great. But the JW's don't even have a part to play in sorting it - let alone delivery.

But I do believe there are many legitimate delivery firms on the market. Just not yours.


The almighty like you have to put up with the post man you get regardless of what your opinion might be.

Tell me where I can find a postal service today who will deliver the Almighties message to the people?

How many today will give up their big ideas in place of doing the will of the Almighty?

Matthew 7:2
.Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,  will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.

Most are still confused as to what is God's will are they not?








Click to see full size image
Jim

Go into a church.
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
Go into a church.


Most of the churches round here have been turned into flats, those left are emptying rapidly because of not knowing what God's will is,  so is your recommendation a bit like the blind leading the blind?

Which church teaches the word of God and not the archaic teachings of Babylon's religion?






Click to see full size image
Jim

Got the blind bit right.
http://www.torchtrust.org
is an excellent site for blind Christians.

But go into any church where God's word is preached.*



Not a corrupted travesty created by anonymous sycophants for a biased sect to create more fictional parousias.
Lexilogio

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

JamesJah wrote:


Tell me where I can find a postal service today who will deliver the Almighties message to the people?




That's easy. Go into any church. There are still plenty around.
Richie

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


Tell me where I can find a postal service today who will deliver the Almighties message to the people?




That's easy. Go into any church. There are still plenty around.


I believe the phrase is 'owned'

Lexi comes out  
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
Nope.
God's opinion?
John 3:16.
Simples!


I see, a case of selective belief, ie, I shant believe anything else God says when I got this card up my sleeve. Tut tut Jim, seem a case of of bringing in another scriture here, one that says something along the lines of 'push off I don't know you' I think there's a mention there also about the things done in a certain name?

bernard (hug)
Shaker

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

Richie wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


Tell me where I can find a postal service today who will deliver the Almighties message to the people?




That's easy. Go into any church. There are still plenty around.


I believe the phrase is 'owned'

Lexi comes out  


Nearly - all the too-cool-for-school Beatles-listening kids these days say pwned
Richie

Re: Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?

Shaker wrote:
Richie wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


Tell me where I can find a postal service today who will deliver the Almighties message to the people?




That's easy. Go into any church. There are still plenty around.


I believe the phrase is 'owned'

Lexi comes out  


Nearly - all the too-cool-for-school Beatles-listening kids these days say pwned


MOre of a Stones fan myself these days
JamesJah

Do any of you understand why this was advised for those who wish to do what the Almighty required??

Revelation 18:4, 5
I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.

 For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind.


Does this have something to do with the wheat and the weeds?
Jim

What does this have to do with the accuracy or otherwise of OT chronology?
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
What does this have to do with the accuracy or otherwise of OT chronology?


People who obediently took notice of Jesus command to keep on the watch would have noticed the signs of the times and started to inform others would they have not?

Matthew 25:10-13
The virgins who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. 11 Afterward, the rest of the virgins also came, saying, ‘Sir, Sir, open to us!’ In answer he said, ‘I tell you the truth, I do not know you.’ 13 “Keep on the watch, therefore, because you know neither the day nor the hour.

Mark 13:35-37
Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or at dawn or early in the morning, in order that when he comes suddenly, he does not find you sleeping. But what I say to you, I say to all: Keep on the watch.

Daniel 12:1
During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.


Daniel 12:3
those having insight will shine as brightly as the expanse of heaven, and those bringing the many to righteousness like the stars, forever and ever.


Do you know who are the ones having insight?
Jim

To reiterate:
What does this have to do with the accuracy of OT chronology/genaeology?
Richie

Jim wrote:
To reiterate:
What does this have to do with the accuracy of OT chronology/genaeology?


Wibble  

If this is the same James as the one I tangled with in the past over on't other side then it has zip to do with your question Jim and more to do with the 'special' insider knowledge which we as outsiders have no access to

Or in plain english - bollocks
Jim

Yep.
Who can forget the "does blood give life" thread on the Beeb message board?
You know what to expect, then......
Quizzimodo

Was he James42 on the BBC board?
Jim

Bingo!
Quizzimodo

Jim wrote:
Bingo!


Thought he must be
Some interesting ideas IIRC including that there British Museum supported his claims for humanity being 10000 years old
Sebastian Toe

Quizzimodo wrote:
Jim wrote:
Bingo!


Thought he must be
Some interesting ideas IIRC including that there British Museum supported his claims for humanity being 10000 years old


...and planetary alignments cause sunspots, apparently.

Except during the Maunder minimum when there were loads of alignments but no sunspots!
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
To reiterate:
What does this have to do with the accuracy of OT chronology/genaeology?


what has that to do with>>>\/


Is It Time To Reassess Archbishop Ussher?




       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum