[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / ausneets / ideas / leftpol / webmcams / zenpol ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: 9cc31d506c08a7a⋯.jpg (406.71 KB, 1280x850, 128:85, 1280px-Göbekli_Tepe,_Urfa.jpg)

ee1911 No.615688

It's established the site was dated back to ~10,000 BC and was probably a religious site, since there are no signs of permanent settlements unearthed in the area as of yet. "The upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris was a refuge during the dry and cold Younger Dryas climatic event (10,800 – 9,500 BCE)," which have happened around the same time of Gobekli Tepe's foundation. Where do you think this fits in with the chronology of genesis?

Also if this discussion is dead from the start, young Earth vs old Earth thread then.

3f2cab No.615699

>>615688

Protip: less than half of Protties on this board are creationists

Protip #2: Catholics and Orthodox couldn't care less


91df6d No.615710

I am >< this close to be YEC (but still I don't really care, since I already believe what Humani Generis said is essential to salvation) so I can tell you this: pre-historical studies are way, way to uncertian to take them as absolute truth. It's probably much younger. Maybe pre-flood, but still younger than they might want you to believe.


604b2e No.615711

>>615688

This guy >>615699 is exactly right.

In addition, the "young earth" idea was inserted into prottieism by talmudics very recently, as in the last 200 years, as a concept the talmudics invented and invented only fairly recently themselves, as in the last 1800 years or so.

There is no "chronology" of Genesis because it's not a literal creation documentary. It's a story that has moral points to it, including but not limited to the ex nihilo creation, the Fall, the enemy satan, and multiple veiled references to the Trinity. "Adam" is a word that also means "mankind" FWIW.

FWIAW the hebe word for "day" doesn't have the sole meaning of 24 hours, but is often used to denote a completed task. If you look carefully at this word and its usage throughout, especially in the Revelation, you'll start to realize that many of the uses of time measurements in Scripture are symbolic and not literal.

Another example of a non-literal usage of time is the genealogy of Jesus. The point isn't to actually use it to trace back time to Abram or Adam, it's to include certain persons in the genealogy in order to make some points, that He is descended not only from priests and kings but also from whores and sinners who reformed, and that His bloodline is not purely from the Tribes of Israel, so his message is also not to them alone. The three groups of 14 ancestors represent three different groups of OT leaders and the 14 is related to the value of the vowels in the name David of whom He is a descendant.

There's more to be said on all of these, but this should be enough for a start. The whole "young earth" thing, as well as the entire idea that everything in the Bible should be taken literally, needs to be recognized as the heresies they are.


5c28d9 No.615716

>>615699

Cathanon here. I don't care but see no reason too think Genesis is not literal. I still don't believe it's important, though.

>>615688

>dated back to ~10,000 BC… during the dry and cold Younger Dryas climatic event (10,800 – 9,500 BCE)

Its dating is assumed based on another assumption that is based on another assumption. I don't really care and see the age of the Earth as a D&C topic, but I don't see this, or any of the other "this is X thousands/millions/billions of years old" claims changing anyone's views or shattering their faith.


90aa9c No.615743

>>615711

t. Origen


ee65ab No.615769

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>615688

One observation is that religion came first, then society and civilization. Anthropologists and archaeologists might say, and do say, that civilization came first, then religion came after to mold society into place. Gobekli Tepe flips that statement on its head.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/the-gobekli-tepe-ruins-and-the-origins-of-neolithic-religion/

In the video, disregard Michael Shermer.


937e7f No.615798

>>615711

Bah gawd proper nouns can also be nouns! This changes everything!


fd9ac7 No.615800

>>615769

>In the video, disregard Michael Shermer.

What? having watched it I must agree with many of the comments, Shermer was being entirely reasonable and was ganged up on by Joe and Hancock


5cbfaa No.615815

>>615711

>In addition, the "young earth" idea was inserted into prottieism by talmudics very recently, as in the last 200 years, as a concept the talmudics invented and invented only fairly recently themselves, as in the last 1800 years or so.

Not quite.

St. Basil the Great is, I believe, creationist, while others were not.

Basically, there's never been consensus on it.


1cc5a3 No.615818

>>615798

Don't take the Lord's name in vain.


233733 No.615823

Gobekli Tepe is interesting in terms of anthropology, but that's about it. Just another pagan temple but far older than previously thought.


ee65ab No.615825

>>615800

I misremembered the content of the video before I posted it. There's another Michael Shermer video, I think during the same interview session, where he's unimpressed with any of the claims the two other men are describing. It boiled down to him saying, "Yeah, so what?" to every amazing feat paleolithic humans were able to accomplish.


ef9718 No.615851

>>615825

Meh, that does sound like this video actually, but Shermer was being entirely reasonable in (rhetorically) asking "yeah so what?" His point being that there isn't an answer to this question simply because we don't know "what," because we don't have the evidence to draw concrete conclusions, and (it shouldn't need to be said in most cases but in this instance did need to be multiple times by him to Joe and Hancock) anything outside of the information we can glean from the actual evidence we have is pure speculation. This is why he's unimpressed with their claims, as you described it.


42096b No.615886

>>615711

I believe the creation story is literal because even to this day we still have the Sabbath and 6 days of work. I think it's dangerous to tread into "don't take the Bible literally" territory because that can be used against us in the great deception.


ef4d98 No.615963

>>615886

>because even to this day we still have the Sabbath and 6 days of work.

They're symbolic. Historically they were symbolic.

Though God still gave us the sabbath to rest in remembrance of his act of creation, and so we continue to keep it because of that. What the day exactly means doesn't and will never change that point.


42096b No.615985

>>615963

Even if you don't believe in a literal Creation, I hope you affirm Genesis 1:1




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / ausneets / ideas / leftpol / webmcams / zenpol ]