How can you possibly believe the dates Sciencist have put on the last ice age? Or for that matter, the Bering Strait?
What's your answer?
Can you clarify what you are asking?
: admin Tue Apr 01, 2008 - 17:32:12
Can you clarify what you are asking?
Sorry for the confusion, Lee. I have developed an interest in the last ice age that we had and it seems that according to some Scientist it was about 17,000 years while others think it was between 9,000 and 50 plus thousands years ago. This timeline doesn't agree with our account of Creation in Genesis.
The bridge made by the layers of ice that formed the Bering Strait is said to have been the way the first peoples made their way into the Americas. The dates believed for their migration is also older than the account of Creation.
I was just wondering what others believe on these subjects.
The Bible gives no date for creation or the age of the earth.
: admin Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:37:07
The Bible gives no date for creation or the age of the earth.
I must be messed up somewhere because I thought it was about 6,000 years ago that God created the earth and man.
The Bible doesn't say that. A Bishop claimed that at some point in the past but the Bible doesn't mention anything about the age of the earth or the Universe.
: admin Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 10:20:52
The Bible doesn't say that. A Bishop claimed that at some point in the past but the Bible doesn't mention anything about the age of the earth or the Universe.
Is it then possible that people crossed the Bering Strait 9,000 years ago coming to the Americas.
Any answers are appreciated. I'm just trying to learn more nothing else.
: admin Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:37:07
The Bible gives no date for creation or the age of the earth.
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 3,600 B.C.
Abraham entered Canaan when he was 75, (cf. Gen 12:4) so he would have been born roughly 2039 B.C.
Then the Exodus out of Egypt was 430 years after Abraham entered Canaan to the day (cf. Gen 12:10, Exodus 12:40, Gal 3:17) placing the Exodus 1964 B.C.
Then you have the construction of Solomon's Temple 480 years after the Exodus (cf. 1 Kings 6:1) nearly 1534 B.C.
From the end of Solomon's 40 year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.
Then considering the archaeological event of the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon in 588 B.C., and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.
Daniel prophecies from that captivity in Babylon from a decree to rebuild Jerusalem there will be 62 weeks (483 years) to the coming of Messiah. Now I wont pretend to know what decree that was since there are 4 recorded in the Bible; but they only span 539-444 B.C. So we are only approximately looking at a century for a margin of error, hardly enough room to fit million and billions of years. This would finally place us about 100 B.C.-33 A.D.
I threw this together from a few different sources, I could take more time to fine turn this since I haven't mapped everything out picture perfect. But I think this give you a pretty good idea that there is ample information in the Bible to conclude the relative age of the earth.
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
: admin Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:37:07
The Bible gives no date for creation or the age of the earth.
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
Abraham entered Canaan when he was 75, (cf. Gen 12:4) so he would have been born roughly 2039 B.C.
Then the Exodus out of Egypt was 430 years after Abraham entered Canaan to the day (cf. Gen 12:10, Exodus 12:40, Gal 3:17) placing the Exodus 1964 B.C.
Then you have the construction of Solomon's Temple 480 years after the Exodus (cf. 1 Kings 6:1) nearly 1534 B.C.
From the end of Solomon's 40 year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.
Then considering the archaeological event of the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon in 588 B.C., and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.
Daniel prophecies from that captivity in Babylon from a decree to rebuild Jerusalem there will be 62 weeks (483 years) to the coming of Messiah. Now I wont pretend to know what decree that was since there are 4 recorded in the Bible; but they only span 539-444 B.C. So we are only approximately looking at a century for a margin of error, hardly enough room to fit million and billions of years. This would finally place us about 100 B.C.-33 A.D.
I threw this together from a few different sources, I could take more time to fine turn this since I haven't mapped everything out picture perfect. But I think this give you a pretty good idea that there is ample information in the Bible to conclude the relative age of the earth.
This account then does not correspond with biblical history -
Scholars who follow the Bering Strait theory agree that most indigenous peoples of the Americas descended from people who probably migrated from Siberia across the Bering Strait, anywhere between 9,000 and 50,000 years ago. The timeframe and exact routes are still matters of debate, and the model faces continuous challenges.
: Bonnie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:47:25
This account then does not correspond with biblical history -
Scholars who follow the Bering Strait theory agree that most indigenous peoples of the Americas descended from people who probably migrated from Siberia across the Bering Strait, anywhere between 9,000 and 50,000 years ago. The timeframe and exact routes are still matters of debate, and the model faces continuous challenges.
What "scientific" theories do correspond with what God says?
I think most migration happened before the time of Peleg (cf. Gen 10:25), and that shortly after the division was caused by rising sea levels as the earth changed after the flood. If you are interested in this subject there are some great videos on young earth creationism done by Kent Hovind.
Just click the links for the seminars and the videos open right on the page.
http://freehovind.com/watch
Or you can download them from his site:
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
Bishop Ussher dated creation at October of 4004 BC. I can't remember the exact date, but it all started on a Sunday (ironic, since the Sun wasn't even created until that Wednesday).
I wonder what time Friday God ended his work. Did he knock off early or put in all eight?
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:01:58
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
I think that was a typo.
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 12:00:14
: Bonnie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:47:25
This account then does not correspond with biblical history -
Scholars who follow the Bering Strait theory agree that most indigenous peoples of the Americas descended from people who probably migrated from Siberia across the Bering Strait, anywhere between 9,000 and 50,000 years ago. The timeframe and exact routes are still matters of debate, and the model faces continuous challenges.
What "scientific" theories do correspond with what God says?
I think most migration happened before the time of Peleg (cf. Gen 10:25), and that shortly after the division was caused by rising sea levels as the earth changed after the flood. If you are interested in this subject there are some great videos on young earth creationism done by Kent Hovind.
Just click the links for the seminars and the videos open right on the page.
http://freehovind.com/watch
Or you can download them from his site:
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video
I have bookmarked the site.
Thanks, Charles.
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:11:27
Bishop Ussher dated creation at October of 4004 BC. I can't remember the exact date, but it all started on a Sunday (ironic, since the Sun wasn't even created until that Wednesday).
I wonder what time Friday God ended his work. Did he knock off early or put in all eight?
This I haven't heard of before.
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:01:58
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
The way these suppositional histories are put together, it might as well have.
The Bible's not a magic 8-ball. You can't just go looking in it to find the answer to every question you have; there are some things it just doesn't concern itself with.
: marc Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:09:58
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:01:58
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
The way these suppositional histories are put together, it might as well have.
The Bible's not a magic 8-ball. You can't just go looking in it to find the answer to every question you have; there are some things it just doesn't concern itself with.
Based upon what we've been taught when do you believe America first become inhabited?
: Bonnie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:34:00
: marc Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:09:58
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:01:58
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
The way these suppositional histories are put together, it might as well have.
The Bible's not a magic 8-ball. You can't just go looking in it to find the answer to every question you have; there are some things it just doesn't concern itself with.
Based upon what we've been taught when do you believe America first become inhabited?
When early Siberians wandered across the land bridge connecting the Bering Strait, just as you said previously.
: mike Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 18:08:28
: Bonnie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:34:00
: marc Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:09:58
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:01:58
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
The way these suppositional histories are put together, it might as well have.
The Bible's not a magic 8-ball. You can't just go looking in it to find the answer to every question you have; there are some things it just doesn't concern itself with.
Based upon what we've been taught when do you believe America first become inhabited?
When early Siberians wandered across the land bridge connecting the Bering Strait, just as you said previously.
Mike, the dates are all wrong. I suppose they could be right about the people crossing over and wrong about the dates. ???
: Bonnie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 18:21:54
: mike Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 18:08:28
: Bonnie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:34:00
: marc Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:09:58
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:01:58
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
The way these suppositional histories are put together, it might as well have.
The Bible's not a magic 8-ball. You can't just go looking in it to find the answer to every question you have; there are some things it just doesn't concern itself with.
Based upon what we've been taught when do you believe America first become inhabited?
When early Siberians wandered across the land bridge connecting the Bering Strait, just as you said previously.
Mike, the dates are all wrong. I suppose they could be right about the people crossing over and wrong about the dates. ???
Bonnie,
There appears to be some disagreement about the dates, to be sure. I am unclear from reading the thread who you think has the wrong dates.
The Scientist of course.
: Bonnie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 18:34:46
The Scientist of course.
I see.
The data I have seen suggests that the land "bridge" (a misnomer, for it was hundreds of miles wide) was last submerged about 13,000 years ago. But it may have been present for 20,000 years or more, so people could have crossed over any time during that period.
: mike Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 18:45:43
: Bonnie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 18:34:46
The Scientist of course.
I see.
The data I have seen suggests that the land "bridge" (a misnomer, for it was hundreds of miles wide) was last submerged about 13,000 years ago. But it may have been present for 20,000 years or more, so people could have crossed over any time during that period.
I guess it's panning out as one of those puzzles in life we can't put together.
Thanks for your input.
: marc Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:09:58
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:01:58
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
The way these suppositional histories are put together, it might as well have.
The Bible's not a magic 8-ball. You can't just go looking in it to find the answer to every question you have; there are some things it just doesn't concern itself with.
I never heard the magic 8-ball quip before, where'd you hear that; Rob's newest book?
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 20:06:30
: marc Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:09:58
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:01:58
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
The way these suppositional histories are put together, it might as well have.
The Bible's not a magic 8-ball. You can't just go looking in it to find the answer to every question you have; there are some things it just doesn't concern itself with.
I never heard the magic 8-ball quip before, where'd you hear that; Rob's newest book?
I think it was from Todd's latest book.
: Gary Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 21:19:20
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 20:06:30
: marc Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 17:09:58
: charlie Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:01:58
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 11:24:27
I disagree.
The Bible is clear that after the fall from Adam to Noah is about 1,656 (cf. Gen 5:3-32) that would place creation at about 4,000 B.C.
Then from Noah's grandson Arphaxad (born 2 years after the flood)to Abraham is another 290 years (cf. Gen 11:11-26) placing the flood at 4,400 B.C.
So, lemme get this straight: the flood happened 400 years BEFORE creation?
The way these suppositional histories are put together, it might as well have.
The Bible's not a magic 8-ball. You can't just go looking in it to find the answer to every question you have; there are some things it just doesn't concern itself with.
I never heard the magic 8-ball quip before, where'd you hear that; Rob's newest book?
I think it was from Todd's latest book.
I'm pretty sure thats not Todd Friel...
For a little balance, the scientific perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas)
Also, one might note that the dates given for the length of life are significantly different in the Greek manuscripts of the LXX, than they are in the Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts that most English Bibles translate from.
There's a difference of a thousand years or so in there.
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:12:06
For a little balance, the scientific perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas)
Also, one might note that the dates given for the length of life are significantly different in the Greek manuscripts of the LXX, than they are in the Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts that most English Bibles translate from.
There's a difference of a thousand years or so in there.
Jarrod
Thanks, Jarrod, I've done quite a bit of reading at Wikipedia but didn't see this.
I heard several years ago that we are due another Ice Age. Do you agree with that?
: Bonnie Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:38:24
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:12:06
For a little balance, the scientific perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas)
Also, one might note that the dates given for the length of life are significantly different in the Greek manuscripts of the LXX, than they are in the Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts that most English Bibles translate from.
There's a difference of a thousand years or so in there.
Jarrod
Thanks, Jarrod, I've done quite a bit of reading at Wikipedia but didn't see this.
I heard several years ago that we are due another Ice Age. Do you agree with that?
I know enough to know that I don't know enough to say one way or the other. ::smile::
Although, I read a fascinating book recently about all the various ways that mankind could be destroyed. Supervolcanoes, meteor impact, too much solar activity, not enough solar activity, nuclear war, super-germs, etc.
I'm going to agree with Jonathan Edwards on this one:
The reason why they are not fallen already, and don't fall now, is only that God's appointed time is not come.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 18:12:10
: Bonnie Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:38:24
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:12:06
For a little balance, the scientific perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas)
Also, one might note that the dates given for the length of life are significantly different in the Greek manuscripts of the LXX, than they are in the Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts that most English Bibles translate from.
There's a difference of a thousand years or so in there.
Jarrod
Thanks, Jarrod, I've done quite a bit of reading at Wikipedia but didn't see this.
I heard several years ago that we are due another Ice Age. Do you agree with that?
I know enough to know that I don't know enough to say one way or the other. ::smile::
Although, I read a fascinating book recently about all the various ways that mankind could be destroyed. Supervolcanoes, meteor impact, too much solar activity, not enough solar activity, nuclear war, super-germs, etc.
I'm going to agree with Jonathan Edwards on this one:
The reason why they are not fallen already, and don't fall now, is only that God's appointed time is not come.
lol wise man!
It would seem to me that Globable Warming would fit if indeed we are in the End Times. All through history God has used natural forces to bring about His designs.
If you could back using all the geneologies in the Bible, I think you get about 3600 years. I am not sure about all the other numbers Charles used, but I added up the years given in geneologies and got about 3600. That was up until Christ.
In Christ,
KP
: k-pappy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 21:41:17
If you could back using all the geneologies in the Bible, I think you get about 3600 years. I am not sure about all the other numbers Charles used, but I added up the years given in geneologies and got about 3600. That was up until Christ.
In Christ,
KP
The following has been shamelessly stolen from another internet forum:
...the genealogies of the Masoretic text and the LXX are very similar. The only significant difference between the MS and the LXX on Genesis 5 is that the LXX has 753 years for Lamech's life span while the MS has 777.
The other difference is that the LXX adds 100 years to the life of some of the fathers when they had their sons. For example, the LXX has Adam having Seth at age 230 while the MS says it was at 130. But to make up for the difference, the LXX shaves off 100 years from the rest of the life of Adam, saying that Adam lived 700 years more, while the MS says he lived 800 years more. Hence, both the MS and LXX say Adam lived a total of 930 years (MS: 130 + 800 = 930; LXX: 230 + 700 = 930).
The LXX adds 100 years to Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Enoch, but not Jared, Lamech or Noah. Except in the case of Lamech (noted above) the LXX shaves off what it added to the MS.
As for Genesis 11, the LXX adds 100 years to Arphaxad, Salach, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, but not Shem or Nahor.
But there are a few more discrepancies that are not in the Genesis 5 genealogy. The LXX adds Cainan between Arphaxad and Selach, but which is also recorded in Luke 3:36.
Also, there is a great disparity between the life spans. Arphaxad, Salach, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor all have greater life spans in the LXX by about 30 to 154 years. But the LXX has a shorter life span than the MS for Eber by 60 years.
All in all, the only place where we would get a slightly different total length of time for the genealogies is Genesis 11, and there the LXX has 3,976 years but the MS has 2,996 years, for a total of 980 years, but the bulk of that comes from Cainan who adds 460 years to the LXX genealogy that is not in the MS genealogy.
This would mean that, if, without exception, the genealogies are father-son relationships, the creation of Adam could extend to around 4800-5000 BC, as opposed to the 4000 BC of the MS.
But if the genealogies (except for the five realationships that are specified as father-son) are ancestral relationships wherein the ancestor is the calendar marker until the birth of the next-in-line, then we could go as high as 12,000 BC for the creation of Adam according to the LXX.
Hi K-P, thanks for the information.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 23:35:02
: k-pappy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 21:41:17
If you could back using all the geneologies in the Bible, I think you get about 3600 years. I am not sure about all the other numbers Charles used, but I added up the years given in geneologies and got about 3600. That was up until Christ.
In Christ,
KP
The following has been shamelessly stolen from another internet forum:
...the genealogies of the Masoretic text and the LXX are very similar. The only significant difference between the MS and the LXX on Genesis 5 is that the LXX has 753 years for Lamech's life span while the MS has 777.
The other difference is that the LXX adds 100 years to the life of some of the fathers when they had their sons. For example, the LXX has Adam having Seth at age 230 while the MS says it was at 130. But to make up for the difference, the LXX shaves off 100 years from the rest of the life of Adam, saying that Adam lived 700 years more, while the MS says he lived 800 years more. Hence, both the MS and LXX say Adam lived a total of 930 years (MS: 130 + 800 = 930; LXX: 230 + 700 = 930).
The LXX adds 100 years to Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Enoch, but not Jared, Lamech or Noah. Except in the case of Lamech (noted above) the LXX shaves off what it added to the MS.
As for Genesis 11, the LXX adds 100 years to Arphaxad, Salach, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, but not Shem or Nahor.
But there are a few more discrepancies that are not in the Genesis 5 genealogy. The LXX adds Cainan between Arphaxad and Selach, but which is also recorded in Luke 3:36.
Also, there is a great disparity between the life spans. Arphaxad, Salach, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor all have greater life spans in the LXX by about 30 to 154 years. But the LXX has a shorter life span than the MS for Eber by 60 years.
All in all, the only place where we would get a slightly different total length of time for the genealogies is Genesis 11, and there the LXX has 3,976 years but the MS has 2,996 years, for a total of 980 years, but the bulk of that comes from Cainan who adds 460 years to the LXX genealogy that is not in the MS genealogy.
This would mean that, if, without exception, the genealogies are father-son relationships, the creation of Adam could extend to around 4800-5000 BC, as opposed to the 4000 BC of the MS.
But if the genealogies (except for the five realationships that are specified as father-son) are ancestral relationships wherein the ancestor is the calendar marker until the birth of the next-in-line, then we could go as high as 12,000 BC for the creation of Adam according to the LXX.
Jarrod, you amaze me with all the info you're able to come up with on just about any subject.
That date would work or at least I think it would as to when the first peoples came to the Americas across the Bering Strait.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 23:35:02
: k-pappy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 21:41:17
If you could back using all the geneologies in the Bible, I think you get about 3600 years. I am not sure about all the other numbers Charles used, but I added up the years given in geneologies and got about 3600. That was up until Christ.
In Christ,
KP
The following has been shamelessly stolen from another internet forum:
...the genealogies of the Masoretic text and the LXX are very similar. The only significant difference between the MS and the LXX on Genesis 5 is that the LXX has 753 years for Lamech's life span while the MS has 777.
The other difference is that the LXX adds 100 years to the life of some of the fathers when they had their sons. For example, the LXX has Adam having Seth at age 230 while the MS says it was at 130. But to make up for the difference, the LXX shaves off 100 years from the rest of the life of Adam, saying that Adam lived 700 years more, while the MS says he lived 800 years more. Hence, both the MS and LXX say Adam lived a total of 930 years (MS: 130 + 800 = 930; LXX: 230 + 700 = 930).
The LXX adds 100 years to Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Enoch, but not Jared, Lamech or Noah. Except in the case of Lamech (noted above) the LXX shaves off what it added to the MS.
As for Genesis 11, the LXX adds 100 years to Arphaxad, Salach, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, but not Shem or Nahor.
But there are a few more discrepancies that are not in the Genesis 5 genealogy. The LXX adds Cainan between Arphaxad and Selach, but which is also recorded in Luke 3:36.
Also, there is a great disparity between the life spans. Arphaxad, Salach, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor all have greater life spans in the LXX by about 30 to 154 years. But the LXX has a shorter life span than the MS for Eber by 60 years.
All in all, the only place where we would get a slightly different total length of time for the genealogies is Genesis 11, and there the LXX has 3,976 years but the MS has 2,996 years, for a total of 980 years, but the bulk of that comes from Cainan who adds 460 years to the LXX genealogy that is not in the MS genealogy.
This would mean that, if, without exception, the genealogies are father-son relationships, the creation of Adam could extend to around 4800-5000 BC, as opposed to the 4000 BC of the MS.
But if the genealogies (except for the five realationships that are specified as father-son) are ancestral relationships wherein the ancestor is the calendar marker until the birth of the next-in-line, then we could go as high as 12,000 BC for the creation of Adam according to the LXX.
You know, when I hit quote, I can actually read it as it appears in the little blue box! Otherwise, my eyes fail me.
I expect there's so much about all this that we don't understand.
: marc Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 09:28:51
I expect there's so much about all this that we don't understand.
I expect you're right. ::nodding::
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 15:23:29
: marc Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 09:28:51
I expect there's so much about all this that we don't understand.
I expect you're right. ::nodding::
I expect you're right about marc being right ::noworries::
In Christ,
KP
I guess we're at a dead end! ::shrug::
Thanks for the help and posts.
God Bless
: Bonnie Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 18:12:43
I guess we're at a dead end! ::shrug::
Thanks for the help and posts.
God Bless
Maybe we are at a dead end. But another thought worth floating here is that the geneologies are probably incomplete. In fact, they were probably listed for various different reasons in different places in scripture, and some geneologies differ when listed in different places.
If they are incomplete, then they are certainly less useful for calculating dates.
: mike Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 18:36:24
In fact, they were probably listed for various different reasons in different places in scripture, and some geneologies differ when listed in different places.
What are some of the different reasons for having a geneology? I mean, other than preserving a written record of a certain bloodline.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 19:07:10
: mike Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 18:36:24
In fact, they were probably listed for various different reasons in different places in scripture, and some geneologies differ when listed in different places.
What are some of the different reasons for having a geneology? I mean, other than preserving a written record of a certain bloodline.
Maybe I didn't phrase that as clearly as I could. What I mean is that sometimes there is emphasis on relation or descent from particular important individuals, with no need to list everyone in the line of descent. Sometimes having a particular number of people in the list was important to the writer, such as in Matthew's geneology of Jesus.
What I'm really looking to do is establish approximately when the first inhabitants crossed the Bering Strait coming to America.
Sorry, Bonnie.
I did not intend to hijack your thread.
: mike Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 20:03:59
Sorry, Bonnie.
I did not intend to hijack your thread.
Hey, Mike, any and all help are desperately appreciated.
The theory that the Siberian land bridge accounts for ALL migration to the Americas is based solely on the notion that ancients could not possibly have had the technology to sail to the Americas. But, the testimony of history asserts otherwise. Many of the oldest monuments of history are the most sublime and technically difficult to explain. The idea that people could engineer the Great Pyramid of Giza (for example) but be to stupid to build ocean going ships makes no sense at all.
The similarity between Clovis points and points made in France, the presence of Caucasian type skulls, are difficult for the Siberian land bridge folks to explain away. Then there is the whole subject of Tifinag and Ogham inscriptions in Eastern North America. I won't come down on any side of this question. But, I just can't see how anyone could be so sure of the "fact" that ancient cultures could not possibly have been able to sail.
: chayat Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 08:44:28
The theory that the Siberian land bridge accounts for ALL migration to the Americas is based solely on the notion that ancients could not possibly have had the technology to sail to the Americas. But, the testimony of history asserts otherwise. Many of the oldest monuments of history are the most sublime and technically difficult to explain. The idea that people could engineer the Great Pyramid of Giza (for example) but be to stupid to build ocean going ships makes no sense at all.
The similarity between Clovis points and points made in France, the presence of Caucasian type skulls, are difficult for the Siberian land bridge folks to explain away. Then there is the whole subject of Tifinag and Ogham inscriptions in Eastern North America. I won't come down on any side of this question. But, I just can't see how anyone could be so sure of the "fact" that ancient cultures could not possibly have been able to sail.
That is certainly a possibility, and very intriguing. I think it was Thor Heyerdahl, if I remember correctly, who demonstrated this possibility.
I think any ancient sailors who arrived in the Americas met the descendants of those who had walked across the "Bering Bridge."
Although I am not certain I agree with everything portrayed in this reference (how's that for a vague caveat! ::doh::), it is a cool graphic and demonstrates likely routes of human migration:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/)
: mike Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 09:33:55
Although I am not certain I agree with everything portrayed in this reference (how's that for a vague caveat! ::doh::), it is a cool graphic and demonstrates likely routes of human migration:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/)
Thanks, Mike, that was very interesting! ::playingguitar::
: chayat Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 08:44:28
The theory that the Siberian land bridge accounts for ALL migration to the Americas is based solely on the notion that ancients could not possibly have had the technology to sail to the Americas. But, the testimony of history asserts otherwise. Many of the oldest monuments of history are the most sublime and technically difficult to explain. The idea that people could engineer the Great Pyramid of Giza (for example) but be to stupid to build ocean going ships makes no sense at all.
The similarity between Clovis points and points made in France, the presence of Caucasian type skulls, are difficult for the Siberian land bridge folks to explain away. Then there is the whole subject of Tifinag and Ogham inscriptions in Eastern North America. I won't come down on any side of this question. But, I just can't see how anyone could be so sure of the "fact" that ancient cultures could not possibly have been able to sail.
I agree (with the caveat that I have seen the Caucasian type skulls used by white supremacists to excuse what was done to the Indians and imply that this was intended to be a white continent--which is a bizarre idea). We make too many assumptions about things we know little about, and in the end it's a little Euro-centric (in the sense that, in spite of our supposedly enlightened views, we still seem to work everything out based on its relation to European civilization.)
: mike Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 09:33:55
Although I am not certain I agree with everything portrayed in this reference (how's that for a vague caveat! ::doh::), it is a cool graphic and demonstrates likely routes of human migration:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/)
Interesting how they traced the path from the Bering Land Bridge almost directly to this area (highlighting Meadowcroft, in SW Pennsylvania.) Here in WV we have numerous ancient burial mounds that date back 2-3,000 years. There's also a more modern (16th century) petroglyph site near here (one that needs some better protection, fwiw) where I found an extremely primitive arrowhead a few years back. This presentation, though, suggests that people were here long before this. I've never really considered that this area was inhabited so early.
: marc Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 11:00:29
: mike Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 09:33:55
Although I am not certain I agree with everything portrayed in this reference (how's that for a vague caveat! ::doh::), it is a cool graphic and demonstrates likely routes of human migration:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/)
Interesting how they traced the path from the Bering Land Bridge almost directly to this area (highlighting Meadowcroft, in SW Pennsylvania.) Here in WV we have numerous ancient burial mounds that date back 2-3,000 years. There's also a more modern (16th century) petroglyph site near here (one that needs some better protection, fwiw) where I found an extremely primitive arrowhead a few years back. This presentation, though, suggests that people were here long before this. I've never really considered that this area was inhabited so early.
My dad used to collect arrowheads.
The idea that Columbus discovered the new world ought to be relegated to a footnote somewhere about how wrong some old theory was.
The RCC had a diocese in Canada hundreds of years before Columbus "found" North America. Scandinavian settlements predate that by several hundred years at least.
There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.
The Creole had/have an oral legend they couldn't understand that wasn't in their native tongue...but was in a Semitic language.
There are old proto-Hebrew writings (like...carved on a big slab of rock old) in New Mexico.
The Incan/Mayan/Aztec legends talk about visitations from people they considered to be unnaturally white, and unnaturally black. Their artwork bears that out as well, with some very caucazoid and africanoid looking people.
And that's just the "Euro-centric" historical evidence. The idea that ancients couldn't have navigated the Atlantic has already been empirically disproved. The Pacific...well...Hawaii is smack dab in the middle of the widest part, and it was populated.
That is a very interesting link...thanks for posting!
In Christ,
KP
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 18:26:01
The idea that Columbus discovered the new world ought to be relegated to a footnote somewhere about how wrong some old theory was.
The RCC had a diocese in Canada hundreds of years before Columbus "found" North America. Scandinavian settlements predate that by several hundred years at least.
There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.
The Creole had/have an oral legend they couldn't understand that wasn't in their native tongue...but was in a Semitic language.
There are old proto-Hebrew writings (like...carved on a big slab of rock old) in New Mexico.
The Incan/Mayan/Aztec legends talk about visitations from people they considered to be unnaturally white, and unnaturally black. Their artwork bears that out as well, with some very caucazoid and africanoid looking people.
And that's just the "Euro-centric" historical evidence. The idea that ancients couldn't have navigated the Atlantic has already been empirically disproved. The Pacific...well...Hawaii is smack dab in the middle of the widest part, and it was populated.
Oh, yes, long, long before Columbus found America many people and cultures lived and died here.
Scholars' estimates of the total population of the Americas before European contact vary enormously, from a low of 10 million to a high of 112 million. This population debate has often had ideological underpinnings. Robert Royal writes that "estimates of pre-Columbian population figures have become heavily politicized with scholars who are particularly critical of Europe and/or Western civilization often favoring wildly higher figures." Some scholars believe that most of the indigenous population resided in Mesoamerica and South America, with approximately 10 percent residing in North America, prior to European colonization.
There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.
Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region. But, it certainly was on a huge scale. The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.
It is interesting to think about why it is that the Columbus first idea has taken hold of our culture. We know of Columbus because Columbus was the first to come to the Americas after the invention of the printing press and after the invention of firearms. The Vikings had a difficult time here because their war technology was not much better than that of the natives. This would have been true of all earlier adventures into the Americas. Firearm technology was the most important turning point for Europe in terms of warfare.
The power of the printing press has to be considered too. It is very difficult for us to appreciate the impossibility of accurately disseminating a uniform message throughout an entire society without print. The Norse went to America and returned to Europe. Many people knew about it. Most did not. If they knew they didn't go around saying "I sailed to America." They had all kinds of descriptions and names for the various places that they landed over here. By Columbus' time there was a patch work of legends about land to the West. All very disorganized. This is all about being able to tell the same story to millions of people quickly. Once that is done it resides in the popular mind for ages to come. That is the case with Columbus. He is the first who discovered America in our public mind for no other reason than good P.R.
I think the real turning point in our history and knowledge of the world was the Punic Wars. At one time Rome was contending with Carthage for domination of Western Europe. The Carthaginians were masters of the sea. The Romans were famous for their lack of interest in the sea. Since Europe had its origin with Rome it had a similar landlocked mentality until after the Renaissance and Age of Discovery. Europe had to relearn maritime technology and knowledge of the world that was common place with the ancients.
Why did Carthage consider control of the Gibraltar Straits so important? This is something worth pondering. Once Carthage was destroyed by Rome its knowledge of sea trade was gone. A similar case can be made with the Celts. All one need do is read the Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar when he encounters their ships trying to get to Britannia. His description of their maritime technology and skill is impressive. They literally could sail circles around the Romans. But, he described ships that were much larger than anything Columbus ever had. The people who believe that nobody had ocean going ships until Columbus never read The Gallic Wars. It is sad that such small minded folks have turned into the gatekeepers of our collective knowledge.
: chayat Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 06:58:02
There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.
Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region. But, it certainly was on a huge scale. The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.
It is interesting to think about why it is that the Columbus first idea has taken hold of our culture. We know of Columbus because Columbus was the first to come to the Americas after the invention of the printing press and after the invention of firearms. The Vikings had a difficult time here because their war technology was not much better than that of the natives. This would have been true of all earlier adventures into the Americas. Firearm technology was the most important turning point for Europe in terms of warfare.
The power of the printing press has to be considered too. It is very difficult for us to appreciate the impossibility of accurately disseminating a uniform message throughout an entire society without print. The Norse went to America and returned to Europe. Many people knew about it. Most did not. If they knew they didn't go around saying "I sailed to America." They had all kinds of descriptions and names for the various places that they landed over here. By Columbus' time there was a patch work of legends about land to the West. All very disorganized. This is all about being able to tell the same story to millions of people quickly. Once that is done it resides in the popular mind for ages to come. That is the case with Columbus. He is the first who discovered America in our public mind for no other reason than good P.R.
I think the real turning point in our history and knowledge of the world was the Punic Wars. At one time Rome was contending with Carthage for domination of Western Europe. The Carthaginians were masters of the sea. The Romans were famous for their lack of interest in the sea. Since Europe had its origin with Rome it had a similar landlocked mentality until after the Renaissance and Age of Discovery. Europe had to relearn maritime technology and knowledge of the world that was common place with the ancients.
Why did Carthage consider control of the Gibraltar Straits so important? This is something worth pondering. Once Carthage was destroyed by Rome its knowledge of sea trade was gone. A similar case can be made with the Celts. All one need do is read the Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar when he encounters their ships trying to get to Britannia. His description of their maritime technology and skill is impressive. They literally could sail circles around the Romans. But, he described ships that were much larger than anything Columbus ever had. The people who believe that nobody had ocean going ships until Columbus never read The Gallic Wars. It is sad that such small minded folks have turned into the gatekeepers of our collective knowledge.
The more I look into the past history the more convinced I am that most common folk (like myself) don't know anything about the history of Americas very far from the days of Columbus except that he found a people he named Indians because he thought he had found India. There's so much prior history that I was amazed and I still am as I try and trace more of this out.
The below came from Wiki.
Scholars who follow the Bering Strait theory agree that most indigenous peoples of the Americas descended from people who probably migrated from Siberia across the Bering Strait, anywhere between 9,000 and 50,000 years ago. The timeframe and exact routes are still matters of debate, and the model faces continuous challenges. A 2006 study (to be published in Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology) reports new DNA-based research that links DNA retrieved from a 10,000-year-old fossilized tooth from an Alaskan island, with specific coastal tribes in Tierra del Fuego, Ecuador, Mexico, and California. Unique DNA markers found in the fossilized tooth were found only in these specific coastal tribes, and were not comparable to markers found in any other indigenous peoples in the Americas. This finding lends substantial credence to a migration theory that at least one set of early peoples moved south along the west coast of the Americas in boats. However, these results may be ambiguous, as there are other issues with DNA research and biological and cultural affiliation.
In time the Europeans disregarded all respect for the valued land and resources and instead displayed insatiable greed and arrogance. The Europeans soon pursued their intent to conquer this new continent with brutal attacks and invasion. The Native Americans soon realized that the invaders would arrive in overwhelming numbers, as many "as the stars in heaven.
: chayat Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 06:58:02
There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.
Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region. But, it certainly was on a huge scale. The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.
It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one. The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.
Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame. How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far? None, according to history-so-called.
The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis. And they spoke a Semitic language.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:57:33
: chayat Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 06:58:02
There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.
Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region. But, it certainly was on a huge scale. The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.
It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one. The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.
Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame. How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far? None, according to history-so-called.
The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis. And they spoke a Semitic language.
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:57:33
: chayat Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 06:58:02
There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.
Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region. But, it certainly was on a huge scale. The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.
It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one. The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.
Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame. How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far? None, according to history-so-called.
The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis. And they spoke a Semitic language.
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, almost certainly."
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.
: mike Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:26:19
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:57:33
: chayat Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 06:58:02
There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.
Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region. But, it certainly was on a huge scale. The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.
It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one. The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.
Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame. How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far? None, according to history-so-called.
The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis. And they spoke a Semitic language.
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, almost certainly."
Why do you think it's not mentioned the Bible?
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:32:54
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.
I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible? Why weren't the people here Evangelized?
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 07:22:34
: mike Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:26:19
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:57:33
: chayat Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 06:58:02
There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.
Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region. But, it certainly was on a huge scale. The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.
It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one. The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.
Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame. How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far? None, according to history-so-called.
The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis. And they spoke a Semitic language.
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, almost certainly."
Why do you think it's not mentioned the Bible?
The bottom line is, I'm not sure.
But a lot of things aren't mentioned in the Bible. Many of the things left unsaid were not pertinent to the message being delivered.
And . . . in Acts 1:8 Jesus told his disciples:
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
The "ends of the earth" mandate to the church included those people currently living in the Americas in the first century, as well as those living on the Tibetan plateau and those aboriginal peoples living in Australia.
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 07:29:14
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:32:54
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.
I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible? Why weren't the people here Evangelized?
The people here were evangelized. The churches all over North and South America attest to that fact.
Mike would it have been feasible to make such a journey as that in those days? I know they had ships but still...
I just have a great big question mark for all this. ??? ??? ???
At the time of the flood, the people here would most likely not have known about Jesus or the approaching destruction of the world.
: spurly Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 13:58:59
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 07:29:14
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:32:54
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.
I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible? Why weren't the people here Evangelized?
The people here were evangelized. The churches all over North and South America attest to that fact.
What churches would that have been?
I read that the longest journey Paul made took him around 3 years to complete.
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 07:29:14
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:32:54
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.
I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible? Why weren't the people here Evangelized?
They weren't yet predestined
Bonnie,
The mission to evangelize the world has not yet been completed, right? Even after almost two millenia, but much progress has been made.
I think we can rest assured that the resurrected Christ knew how big the task was, and that it would take a long time for his disciples to reach some of the more remote peoples of the world.
You are right. In some cases, technologies had to be developed for some of those peoples to be found by the church before they could be evangelized. Just because this is a big job and has required many generations doesn't invalidate the mission or the message.
Does that answer your question?
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:06:20
: spurly Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 13:58:59
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 07:29:14
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:32:54
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.
I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible? Why weren't the people here Evangelized?
The people here were evangelized. The churches all over North and South America attest to that fact.
What churches would that have been?
Christian Churches, Baptist Churches, Churches of Christ, Presbyterian Churches, Lutheran Churches, Anglican Churches, and the list goes on. Almost anywhere you go in North or South America today you can find a body of Christ to meet with because the gospel came from Europe to the Americas.
: Smiles Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:10:13
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 07:29:14
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:32:54
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.
I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible? Why weren't the people here Evangelized?
They weren't yet predestined
Predestined - to hear the Gospel?
: mike Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:12:44
Bonnie,
The mission to evangelize the world has not yet been completed, right? Even after almost two millenia, but much progress has been made.
I think we can rest assured that the resurrected Christ knew how big the task was, and that it would take a long time for his disciples to reach some of the more remote peoples of the world.
You are right. In some cases, technologies had to be developed for some of those peoples to be found by the church before they could be evangelized. Just because this is a big job and has required many generations doesn't invalidate the mission or the message.
Does that answer your question?
Yes, as I understand it many peoples have died before the Gospel reached them but I don't understand it as per the Judgment.
I thought they were claiming the Gospel has now reached just about everywhere. If I understand it correctly the angels will preach to those who haven't heard in the End.
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:22:57
: mike Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:12:44
Bonnie,
The mission to evangelize the world has not yet been completed, right? Even after almost two millenia, but much progress has been made.
I think we can rest assured that the resurrected Christ knew how big the task was, and that it would take a long time for his disciples to reach some of the more remote peoples of the world.
You are right. In some cases, technologies had to be developed for some of those peoples to be found by the church before they could be evangelized. Just because this is a big job and has required many generations doesn't invalidate the mission or the message.
Does that answer your question?
Yes, as I understand it many peoples have died before the Gospel reached them but I don't understand it as per the Judgment.
I thought they were claiming the Gospel has now reached just about everywhere. If I understand it correctly the angels will preach to those who haven't heard in the End.
Do you have a biblical reference for what I have placed in bold above?
: spurly Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:18:01
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:06:20
: spurly Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 13:58:59
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 07:29:14
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:32:54
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.
I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible? Why weren't the people here Evangelized?
The people here were evangelized. The churches all over North and South America attest to that fact.
What churches would that have been?
Christian Churches, Baptist Churches, Churches of Christ, Presbyterian Churches, Lutheran Churches, Anglican Churches, and the list goes on. Almost anywhere you go in North or South America today you can find a body of Christ to meet with because the gospel came from Europe to the Americas.
Yeah, I know we came from Europe... but I'm speaking about the days when Christ walked the earth, or even before that.
: spurly Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:23:57
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:22:57
: mike Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:12:44
Bonnie,
The mission to evangelize the world has not yet been completed, right? Even after almost two millenia, but much progress has been made.
I think we can rest assured that the resurrected Christ knew how big the task was, and that it would take a long time for his disciples to reach some of the more remote peoples of the world.
You are right. In some cases, technologies had to be developed for some of those peoples to be found by the church before they could be evangelized. Just because this is a big job and has required many generations doesn't invalidate the mission or the message.
Does that answer your question?
Yes, as I understand it many peoples have died before the Gospel reached them but I don't understand it as per the Judgment.
I thought they were claiming the Gospel has now reached just about everywhere. If I understand it correctly the angels will preach to those who haven't heard in the End.
Do you have a biblical reference for what I have placed in bold above?
Yes, and I can find it in the Bible - Revelation, I believe.
Revelation 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
If you are a pre-millenial and pre-tribulation in your end times eschatology you can interpret Revelation 14:6 the way that you interpreted it. For my part I am pre-millenial and post-tribulation and I don't interpret that verse in that way.
I have been told that over in the Arab nations people are starting to see Jesus in dreams and visions today in our time They are comming to Christ
Without anyone speaking to them first Who knows what they have been praying Maybe Gods timeclock is up with the Arab nations and the veil is being removed
This has just been verbal from pastors within our church
has anyone else heard about these kind of reports?
I would love to see it in writing website etc
I believe this is a answer to prayer and a inticater to the closeness of the return of Jesus Christ
Also with the likes of God T.V The spreading of the Gospel is going worldwide
Praise God
: spurly Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 14:51:34
If you are a pre-millenial and pre-tribulation in your end times eschatology you can interpret Revelation 14:6 the way that you interpreted it. For my part I am pre-millenial and post-tribulation and I don't interpret that verse in that way.
I believe in pre-trib or at least mid-trib but it's not something I feel fully confident about.
: bemark Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 15:03:42
I have been told that over in the Arab nations people are starting to see Jesus in dreams and visions today in our time They are comming to Christ
Without anyone speaking to them first Who knows what they have been praying Maybe Gods timeclock is up with the Arab nations and the veil is being removed
This has just been verbal from pastors within our church
has anyone else heard about these kind of reports?
I would love to see it in writing website etc
I believe this is a answer to prayer and a inticater to the closeness of the return of Jesus Christ
Also with the likes of God T.V The spreading of the Gospel is going worldwide
Praise God
I'm sure you're right, Mark. I heard that Christianity is really growing in Africa. I think it's wonderful!
Bonnie, obviously you haven't read The Book of Mormon. ::rolling::
: marc Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 16:29:10
Bonnie, obviously you haven't read The Book of Mormon. ::rolling::
I know, Marc, and I feel at such a disadvantage! rofl
I want to thank everybody who helped me make more sense about this subject. I feel I have learned a lot because of you. ::pickinguprock::
: Bonnie Sun Apr 13, 2008 - 07:29:14
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 22:32:54
: Bonnie Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 20:24:53
There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?
I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.
I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible? Why weren't the people here Evangelized?
How can you you be sure that they weren't?
I mean, if they had the ten commandments in New Mexico before that (http://www.mhccorp.com/archaeology/decalogue-introduction.html), why couldn't they have been?
Good site, Jarrod! I'll have to read more there later.
It seems our history classes have left out an awfully lot of history.
I do find all of this fascinating.
Blessings
Speculation aside, there is no evidence that all but a petty sum arrived through anything Link removed per forum rule 3.3 than Beringia.
: Dreadnought Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 23:11:00
Speculation aside, there is no evidence that all but a petty sum arrived through anything Link removed per forum rule 3.3 than Beringia.
I think the study is a good thing. Thanks for sharing it.
: Bonnie Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 19:13:58
Good site, Jarrod! I'll have to read more there later.
It seems our history classes have left out an awfully lot of history.
I do find all of this fascinating.
Blessings
Actually, I don't know anything about that site. I just linked it for the picture of the decalogue at Los Lunas. Maybe I should read it, eh?
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:42:17
: Bonnie Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 19:13:58
Good site, Jarrod! I'll have to read more there later.
It seems our history classes have left out an awfully lot of history.
I do find all of this fascinating.
Blessings
Actually, I don't know anything about that site. I just linked it for the picture of the decalogue at Los Lunas. Maybe I should read it, eh?
I bookmarked it for later. Company just left and I need a rest.