# **Jan/AL:Inspired Prophecy!

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bibleman#2 [Bibleman] on October 27, 1999 at 18:04:10 {dPkPwxsNJEMSSTtTA17sslyACFuF8c}:

In Reply to: *Jan/AL:Inspired Prophecy! posted by Al; on October 27, 1999 at 14:03:50:

Hi Al,

As far as your other comments, I hope you don't mind if I summarize via paragraph:

Paragraph regarding Sargon and the Moses story comparison. This means nothing! Why? Because it might have been common for waterproof baskets for children to be made. What was practical in the time of Sargon became practical for Moses. But even if Moses' mother heard about Sargon saving a child by placing it on the water via legend, that would be enough to explain the connection. It wouldn't necessarily mean the story of Moses was an adaptation. So that's nowhere. You talk about many things including the "fruitage" of the Bible, etc. All that's "subjective." As far as I'm concerned, the fruitage has been remarkable. Your comments were noted.

1. As far as the "days of Creation" are concerned. Of course, anybody can have their own interpretation. But, Biblically, Hebrews requires us to time the Creative Days as 7,000 years each since the millennium is called a "sabbath" rest, basically occupying near the last 1000 years of the 7th Creative Day. Of note, written history and biblical history fall within that 6000-year parameter. And further, there is a Jubilee after the millennium. That is, the last 1000 years of the 7th Creative day means it is the 49th 1000 years, which is a "sabbath" year. But also the 50th, the jubilee, is also a special sabbath. So that Biblical typology forces me to limit specifically the timing of those Creative days to 7000 years each. As far as your billion-years theory, the Bible does not contradict that the planet itself could have been billions of years old. So we have no argument. Otherwise, I follow the Bible's chronology as far as life on the planet, etc within those first 49,000 years. And you can't prove otherwise, so another INCONCLUSIVE.

2. As far as dating is concerned. I can't apologize that we have absolute definite dates for the Neo-Babylonian period since they gave us those absolute dates in their astronomical texts, the only way any kind of historical absolute dating can be done. So I'm just saying those dates are confirmable. As far as earlier dates are concerned, Biblical relative chronology only goes back to Creation and as I noted, the Bible times those days at 7,000 years each. If "science" has proven that unfactual. So be it. But I haven't seen anything to persuade me yet. Certainly not radiocarbon dating and certainly not thermoluminescence, and certainly not archaeology which agrees with the Bible's chronology.

3. Regarding science and dating. I don't think you have heard me very clearly. You see, mankind is less than 6000 years old. If you have a scientist, based upon some method that claims that mankind is older than that, then something is wrong. Either with his methodology or theory, or sample. Get it? In other words, if a radiocarbon dated sample they think is that of a man or animal is dated 20,000 BCE, it is a direct indication their methodolgy or theory is wrong. That's because mankind is no older than 6000 years. Now the critical point you must understand is that there is nothing you can do about my dismissal. And that's because, your observations are based upon THEORY and TECHNIQUE. But since we know the correct dating for mankind, that's more than just opinion, it is an indication that the dating process is incompetent. It is as simple as that.
But the reason I can simply dismiss it, and nothing can be done about it, is because it is DISMISSIBLE! They can't PROVE the dating. They can only voice confidence in the theory and method. But that "confidence" is shattered when you have a better source for the correct dating, which is the Bible. And it's no big deal since scientists don't really have a great grasp on things of nature anyway. It's a lot of speculation. They are the ones who update their theories every year. So one day, when they get it right, if it is a reliable method of dating, the Bible's chronology and dating will be confirmed and that's that. But please, be convinced about it as much as you want. It's not scientific and it is very dismissible. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be able to dismiss it.

So let me explain this to you again one more time.
I'm not concerned in the least bit of nonsense and chatter about mankind being one day older than circa 6000 years. Any type of "scientic" dating that comes up with any date beyond that is flawed at some level and the process is incompetent.

We don't know enough about the ancient past, it's atmosphere, weather conditions, anything! We can only presume they are similar to ours. With those amount of variables involved there is lots of room for error. And since they are coming up with such wild dates, I can confirm for you the dating is INCOMPETENT, so I don't even need to pay attention to it.

See how easy that was. And I didn't just dismiss this without at least looking at what the methods were and the theories behind the methods. I looked and could see from a distance there was no "confirmation" that can be gotten from those methods. So I chose to accept the Bible's chronology. And it works for me.

Anyway, I see you're focussed more on dismissing the Bible than how it's prophecies work out.

One last comment about the flood. I agree with you, it is useless to debate about the flood since we don't know exactly how it happened. After all, the Gobi desert could have been a moutain range before the flood, but now the moutains are gone. So someone who knew that before the flood would say, "Wow! There must have been a global flood to remove those mountains!" But we only see what is left, not what was there before. So the "evidence" of the flood is likely abundant, but that's because it likely destroyed things rather tan built things.

It would be like a person who parked his car on the curb, went into the movies, met someone inside and came back and his car was gone. The owner of the car would be freaking out over the empty space where the car was, but the person with him wouldn't think anything since he didn't know there was a car there before. So one has "evidence"of theft, the other one knows nothing until he is told there was a car there. So some profound evidence may be what used to be there that isn't now! But we can't see that, because it is missing now.

Thanks for considering the Biblical prophecies. I understand that from an outsider, a non-prophet, let's say, the Biblical experience will be different and I empathize with the skepticism.

But, that shouldn't be too long. It would seem if Armageddon came, just as the flood of Noah's day, there would be many more believers in God. So that is what is planned. Those who are wanting to see God "face to face" will get that chance....

:>

As for me...I think I'm going to hide!

Cheers,
Bibleman

Follow Ups:

- ***Jan/AL:Inspired Prophecy! Al; 20:41:13 10/27/99 (0)
- ***Jan/AL:Inspired Prophecy! chappy 19:13:11 10/27/99 (1)
  - ****Jan/AL:Inspired Prophecy! Bibleman 00:08:15 10/28/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ***Jan/AL:Inspired Prophecy!

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]