Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Age of the universe

123578

Comments

  • #122
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    At some point, the demands to be spoon fed become unreasonable. At that point I tend to say that I will leave this as an exercise for the student.

    To be honest, I would like to know where this particular date is documented in the bible. It is a large book. It would be good of you to share.


  • #123
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    galljga1 wrote: »
    To be honest, I would like to know where this particular date is documented in the bible. It is a large book. It would be good of you to share.

    A link has already been posted. In this thread.


  • #124
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    At some point, the demands to be spoon fed become unreasonable. At that point I tend to say that I will leave this as an exercise for the student.

    Ah now, isn't that convenient! Are you sure that's not just because they don't' really reference Ussher's chronology in the King James Bible anymore?

    And how does that chronology line up with the universe appearing older than 6000 years old? When God created stars 10,000 light years away did he create them with their light already mid-journey to Earth?


  • #125
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    robdonn wrote: »
    Ah now, isn't that convenient! Are you sure that's not just because they don't' really reference Ussher's chronology in the King James Bible anymore?

    And how does that chronology line up with the universe appearing older than 6000 years old? When God created stars 10,000 light years away did he create them with their light already mid-journey to Earth?

    It is easy to find the source for the date in question - you know, search engines. These days I should think it within the capabilities of primary school children. But maybe not.

    This forum is for Christianity, not the forum for cosmology.


  • #126
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    robdonn wrote: »
    Ah now, isn't that convenient! Are you sure that's not just because they don't' really reference Ussher's chronology in the King James Bible anymore?

    And how does that chronology line up with the universe appearing older than 6000 years old? When God created stars 10,000 light years away did he create them with their light already mid-journey to Earth?

    Obviously!


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    It is easy to find the source for date in question - you know, search engines. These days I should think it within the capabilities of primary school children. But maybe not.

    This forum is for Christianity, not the forum for cosmology.

    Ah, you're one of those "I don't answer questions, I just make wild claims and insult others for daring to ask for evidence" people. That's sad.

    I have a pet unicorn called Harvey. Don't believe me? Google it.


  • #128
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    robdonn wrote: »
    Ah, you're one of those "I don't answer questions, I just make wild claims and insult others for daring to ask for evidence" people. That's sad.

    I have a pet unicorn called Harvey. Don't believe me? Google it.

    Referencing the bible now constitutes "making wild claims"?

    Personally, I think it is rather silly to ask for material when
    - A link was already provided here, and
    - It is trivially easy to find.
    I am not impressed.

    But there is more! Despite an inability to see/find material even when it is right there, you want to discuss your views of cosmology with us?


  • #129
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    Referencing the bible now constitutes "making wild claims"?

    Personally, I think it is rather silly to ask for material when
    - A link was already provided here, and
    - It is trivially easy to find.
    I am not impressed.

    But there is more! Despite an inability to see/find material even when it is right there, you want to discuss your views of cosmology with us?

    Ah, I see what the problem is, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "link" in terms of discussions on the internet. It usually refers to what is known as a "hyperlink".
    In computing, a hyperlink is a reference to data that the reader can directly follow either by clicking or by hovering. A hyperlink points to a whole document or to a specific element within a document.
    Hyperlink < Look! A link!

    I hope that helps you find one, because you don't seem to be aware that although it may be trivially easy to find, it is not the job of others to prove your point for you. If you make a claim, but do not provide anything to back it up, then your claim is essentially worthless within the context of the conversation even if it is actually true.


  • #130
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    You seriously need a link for the bible? This really is trolling on the grand scale.

    p.s. I think the bible is a tad more available than the Royal Charter for the CofI - of course, you may disagree.

    No, I did not ask for 'a link to the bible'. I asked for a link to support your bizarre claim that 'the exact date of the creation of the world is contained in The King James Bible. It is October 23, 4004 BC.' The date you give is explained by Second Toughest's link on Bishop Ussher, but that most certainly is not in the bible (though I encourage you to show that I am wrong; a link will do).


  • #131
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    robdonn wrote: »
    Ah now, isn't that convenient! Are you sure that's not just because they don't' really reference Ussher's chronology in the King James Bible anymore?

    And how does that chronology line up with the universe appearing older than 6000 years old? When God created stars 10,000 light years away did he create them with their light already mid-journey to Earth?

    Good morning!

    As much as I respect Ussher's credentials in other areas of his ministry including his commitment to understanding the Bible in it's own language and spreading Reformed theology in Ireland I'm not sure he was right on the dates of creation.

    Given that the Bible doesn't mention explicit timelines for creation why would it be reasonable to insist for 10000 years?

    Where the Bible is silent let it be and give room for doing. Where the Bible speaks let it speak and take it to heart.

    Have a great day - I'll check the replies later.

    Much thanks in Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    Then why are you here in this forum? Trying to raise your blood pressure? Or just trolling the nice old fuddy-duddy Christians?

    In my old school days we were taught to respect the religious consciences and beliefs of others, no matter how wrong we thought they were. That long predated the modern affectation for commanding tolerance and inclusivity for the preferences of the "progressives". Of course that tolerance and inclusivity does not apply to to traditionalists and Christians - they can be insulted and dismissed as "misguided ill-informed wretches".

    These days we respect the right to the belief, not the daft belief itself.

    ;)


  • #133
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    As much as I respect Ussher's credentials in other areas of his ministry including his commitment to understanding the Bible in it's own language and spreading Reformed theology in Ireland I'm not sure he was right on the dates of creation.

    Given that the Bible doesn't mention explicit timelines for creation why would it be reasonable to insist for 10000 years?

    Where the Bible is silent let it be and give room for doing. Where the Bible speaks let it speak and take it to heart.

    Have a great day - I'll check the replies later.

    Much thanks in Christ,
    solodeogloria

    If you wish to query the Authorized Version, may I suggest you take it up with the authorities doing the authorizing?


  • #134
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,457 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    cardinal tetra wrote:
    just because you dont agree with other people doesnt give you the omnipotent right to tell people what is or is not fact. you know more know what the universe is made of than the man in the moon. it is all guess work as much as any religion or scientific theory. but to come in and denounce someones beliefs without being knowledgable on the subject is down right rude and oafish in its own capacity.

    Does anyone really think science and religion are guess work? Presumably all religions are equally guess work so how can you decide which religion is correct? If all knowledge is guesswork when how could you decide if anything is even slightly more true than anything else?

    The only way to make a claim like that is to be completely ignorant to the hard work done to determine what is true and what isn't true.

    You can believe anything you want. You only come up against opposition when you try to impose your religious views on others. That's why people come here to discuss and challenge ideas. The argument that it makes you happy to believe in your religious ideas is all you need within your religious group. When having a discussion about reality, it counts for nothing.


  • #135
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    If you wish to query the Authorized Version, may I suggest you take it up with the authorities doing the authorizing?

    Are you going to stand over a single assertation that you've made?


  • #136
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    pauldla wrote: »
    No, I did not ask for 'a link to the bible'. I asked for a link to support your bizarre claim that 'the exact date of the creation of the world is contained in The King James Bible. It is October 23, 4004 BC.' The date you give is explained by Second Toughest's link on Bishop Ussher, but that most certainly is not in the bible (though I encourage you to show that I am wrong; a link will do).

    May I again suggest you simply visit your local Church, and familiarize yourself with the KJAV? Might be good for you.


  • #137
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    As much as I respect Ussher's credentials in other areas of his ministry including his commitment to understanding the Bible in it's own language and spreading Reformed theology in Ireland I'm not sure he was right on the dates of creation.

    By no means am I arguing anything else against Ussher, my only beef today is with the blind adherence to his calculations which say that the universe is younger than this piece of pottery.


  • #138
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    endacl wrote: »
    Are you going to stand over a single assertation that you've made?

    I think it an eminently reasonable suggestion. But then quite a few of you don't seem very tolerant.


  • #139
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    OP - the exact date of the creation of the world is contained in The King James Bible. It is October 23, 4004 BC. The King James Version is officially Authorized by the British government - hence the name "Authorized Version" - and therefore inerrant.

    What I find most shocking here is not the bible stuff - I'm mentally prepared for people believing the most far fetched, unbelievable nonsense in the name of religion.....but the British government - they're on your infallible list now too?:eek::eek::eek:
    If that's the case you really need to check your bullshítometer, batteries must be dead or something!


  • #140
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    I think it an eminently reasonable suggestion. But then quite a few of you don't seem very tolerant.

    Try me. :D


  • #141
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    May I again suggest you simply visit your local Church, and familiarize yourself with the KJAV? Might be good for you.

    Might I suggest you support your claims with some form of evidence, or retract? It would be good for all.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    pauldla wrote: »
    Might I suggest you support your claims with some form of evidence, or retract? It would be good for all.

    Spoon feeding is for babies. Visit that Church. Still good for you.


  • #143
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    Spoon feeding is for babies. Visit that Church. Still good for you.
    I think it may be time for you to start an ignore list.


  • #144
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    robdonn wrote: »
    Ah, I see what the problem is, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "link" in terms of discussions on the internet. It usually refers to what is known as a "hyperlink".


    Hyperlink < Look! A link!

    I hope that helps you find one, because you don't seem to be aware that although it may be trivially easy to find, it is not the job of others to prove your point for you. If you make a claim, but do not provide anything to back it up, then your claim is essentially worthless within the context of the conversation even if it is actually true.

    The minor point that such a link has already been provided still escapes you?


  • #145
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    Spoon feeding is for babies. Visit that Church. Still good for you.

    Spoon feeding may be for babies, evidence is for adults - do you have any of that or you happy enough to sub out your critical thinking to the ever trust worthy British government?


  • #146
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    The minor point that such a link has already been provided still escapes you?
    No, it has not.


  • #147
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    galljga1 wrote: »
    I think it may be time for you to start an ignore list.

    No, I find the shock horror show that people are putting on about what it says in the AV is wonderful stuff. Proof, as if any is needed, of the double standards of the "secularists". What does annoys me is that a forum supposedly for Christianity is instead reduced to bring the playground for atheists and their secularist fellow travelers. How would people feel if some enlightened folk started asking about the temperature of that liquid sodium lake in hell, and how it will feel, over in the A&A reservation?


  • #148
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    galljga1 wrote: »
    No, it has not.

    You can fill in the rest. It goes
    Oh yes it has! :)

    Repeat as necessary.


  • #149
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    No, I find the shock horror show that people are putting on about what it says in the AV is wonderful stuff. Proof, as if any is needed, of the double standards of the "secularists". What does annoys me is that a forum supposedly for Christianity is instead reduced to bring the playground for atheists and their secularist fellow travelers. How would people feel if some enlightened folk started asking about the temperature of that liquid sodium lake in hell, and how it will feel, over in the A&A reservation?

    That may be an appropriate response if all of Christians agreed on this point, but they don't. I don't come here and demand they explain their reasons for believing in God, but you are making a claim that many churches do not agree with. It is a discussion that is completely valid to have in a Christian forum and there is no rule against atheists joining in.


  • #150
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    You can fill in the rest. It goes
    Oh yes it has! :)

    Repeat as necessary.

    Really? I thought it went more like this:
    "Oh, you missed the link? Well here it is again."
    "Thank you!"
    "No problem, we all miss things sometimes. Glad I could help."

    But then again, that would be spoon feeding, right?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    Ah, I see what has happened! As is so common with the secularist/progressive crowd, they can't see past their own blinkers! In this case the blinkers are an old fashioned one, an inability to see that words can have more than one meaning. I should point out to those suffering from this dangerous narrowing of their lexicographical arteries, that one common meaning of the word "bible" is a copy or edition of the bible, which may contain other material in addition to the cannonical books themselves. The AV as instituted in 1701s included the famous annotations written by Archbishop Ussher. Thus we find:
    "The King James Version of the Bible introduced into evidence by the prosecution in Dayton contained Ussher’s famous chronology," and
    "In 1701, the Church of England adopted Ussher’s dates for use in its official Bible."

    Sad reflection on the state of education these days that this seems to have escaped more than one of our secularist friends. More exercises for the student are clearly required!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement