ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Pyramids Survive Flood

According to Bishop Ussher's chronology, the Genesis Flood took place in 2348 BC. The Great Pyramid of Giza was built around 2560 BC. So the pyramid was built about 200 years before the flood. How did it survive all that water and not be washed away?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---learner2 on 6/27/15
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



\\So, Bishop who were Priest first placed the celibacy on THEMSELVES.

Again, do you feel SORRY FOR THE NUNS?\\

Wrong.

It was the Quinisext council which enforced celibacy on bishops.

Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests may be married before ordination as deacons, and may continue their married life. [blush].

Nons are NOT the equivalent of priests, but of monks, and celibacy has always been part of the monastic lifestyle.

Happy Transfiguration!

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/6/15


And to be egalitarian, if a rule (e.g. enforced celibacy) is wrong when applied to priests, but it is not wrong when applied to nuns, THAT is being sexist. --StrongAxe on 8/5/15

Only you believe celibacy isn't applied to nuns.
I have told you several times, celibacy APPLIES TO NUNS.

You have only been complaining about Priests being celibate. But not Nuns.

So by using your own words you should realizes you are Sexist.

You first have to be a Priest before you become a Bishop.

So, Bishop who were Priest first placed the celibacy on THEMSELVES.

Again, do you feel SORRY FOR THE NUNS?
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/6/15


NASB 1Corinthians 7:25-28
"Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.

I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.....

But if you marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you."

The Church was undergoing persecution at the time of the writing of this letter.

Men have demanded that both men and women remain single. A command thank you Strong Ax contrary to the Bible.
---Samuelbb7 on 8/6/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: So, you can't claim you are only speaking about Bishops because Paul only gives them permission to be MARRIED once at LEAST.

No. Paul didn't just give them permission to be married. Paul gave them a COMMAND to be married. As such, any rules that forbid them to be married DIRECTLY contradict Paul, and contradict scripture.

And to be egalitarian, if a rule (e.g. enforced celibacy) is wrong when applied to priests, but it is not wrong when applied to nuns, THAT is being sexist.
---StrongAxe on 8/5/15


No Strongaxe, I gave you Scripture 1 Cor 7. That is in your Bible as well.
St. Paul is speaking about everyone. Only humans get married.

So, you can't claim you are only speaking about Bishops because Paul only gives them permission to be MARRIED once at LEAST.

Virgins and Priest are not Bishops.
In some Orthodox Churches, only unmarried Priests are selected to become Bishops.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/5/15




Nicole_Lacey:

You said: Strongaxe you are so stuck on the Priesthood that you PROVE me right when I called you a SEXIST.

I speak authoritatively about what Scripture says by qupting it, or say it doesn't. If scripture doesn't address an issue, it's personal opinion, and my opinion (and yours, and anybobody else's) don't really carry any weight as far as God's will about a subject is concerned.

Paul specifically spoke about bishops. The fact that Paul never mentioned nuns is his problem (and yours, if you don't like it), not mine.

What Paul said speaks for itself. If you disagree with it, you have a problem with Paul, and with the foundations of scripture itself, not with me. I am just repeating what he said.
---StrongAxe on 8/5/15


There you go again. Strongaxe you are so stuck on the Priesthood that you PROVE me right when I called you a SEXIST.

"..Rather, it's with the church'srequirement that clergy not marry. This removes it from a personal choice, and changes it into a commandment of MEN that contradicts Paul's specific instructions about bishops."--StrongAxeon 8/4/15

Again, do you have NO CONCERN about Paul telling WOMEN not to MARRY?? ANY CONCERN??

That is why I am calling you a SEXIST.

If you complained about both MEN AND WOMEN, I would NOT think you are reflecting on yourself.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/4/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: Strongaxe, please read 1Cor 7. The whole chapter.

I was referring to this earlier. My issue isn't with the personal choice to marry nor not (as Paul is indicating her). Rather, it's with the church's requirement that clergy not marry. This removes it from a personal choice, and changes it into a commandment of men that contradicts Paul's specific instructions about bishops.

SEXIST

I'm just going by what Paul wrote. If you don't like it, blame Paul, not me.
---StrongAxe on 8/4/15


That was one of the best examples of circular logic I have seen in a long time.
Thank you.---micha9344on 8/3/15

The men just can't get it.

I believe they are placing themselves in the men who CHOSE to be without a wife for the name of Jesus sake.
They can't see themselves doing it so they feel guilty.

It's OKAY for women to be nuns.
But please Lord, not men.
'God you are so mean to ask such a thing from a man.
'Women okay, but not men.

SEXIST!

God only wants a few men and women.

Hello! The Population is in decline.
God wants more babies.
Babies born BY His terms.
MARRIAGE
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/3/15


Correct Strong Ax.
---Samuelbb7 on 8/3/15




Strongaxe, please read 1Cor 7. The whole chapter.

Here are some highlights of ch 7:

V 1.."It is a GOOD thing for a MAN NOT TO TOUCH a Woman."

V 7-8 Indeed, I wish EVERYONE TO BE AS I AM, but each has a particular GIFT FROM GOD, one of one kind and one of another.

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say it is a good thing for them to REMAIN as they are, as I DO,...

V17 Only, everyone should LIVE as the Lord has ASSIGNED, just as God CALLED EACH ONE.

V27..Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife.

V32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An UNMARRIED MAN is anxious about the THINGS OF THE LORD, (AKA CLERGY)
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/3/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: Thank you Strongaxe for your direct answer. But you forgot one thing. Nuns are not part of the Clergy.

I was not speaking of nuns. I was speaking of priests and bishops. Paul specifically said that a bishop should be a man of one wife, with a stable family (because if he can't control his family, how can he control a congregation?).

A church that forbids (or even discourages - because I suspect Cluny will object to this) congregational leaders from being married is going directly against what Paul says here.
---StrongAxe on 8/3/15


Nicole,
That was one of the best examples of circular logic I have seen in a long time.
Thank you.
---micha9344 on 8/3/15


Thank you Strongaxe for your direct answer. But you forgot one thing. Nuns are not part of the Clergy.

So, no one esp the Church is doing the opposite of Paul.
Virgin usually means a woman.
Only women are nuns
Paul tells Virgins and men not to marry first.

So, now that you see the Church is following Paul's advise do you feel better?
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/2/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: NOOOOOO Stongaxe, I am not playing your game until you answer my question I asked before I answered your questions.

Which question?

PAUL WASN'T MARRIED. Plus he ADVISED everyone not to get married.
So please deal with Paul who wrote most of the NT before fussing about the Popes.


Paul suggested (to everyone) that it was better not to marry.
Yet THE SAME PAUL said a bishop should be a "man of one wife".

He was the FIRST APOSTLE TO SUGGEST NO ONE TO MARRY.
WHY?
PLEASE be nice and answer that question.


I cannot speak to his motives. Yet I can question those who do the opposite of what Paul said - encouraging everyone EXCEPT clergy to marry.
---StrongAxe on 8/1/15


NOOOOOO Stongaxe, I am not playing your game until you answer my question I asked before I answered your questions.

BE FAIR!

PAUL WASN'T MARRIED. Plus he ADVISED everyone not to get married.
So please deal with Paul who wrote most of the NT before fussing about the Popes.

He was the FIRST APOSTLE TO SUGGEST NO ONE TO MARRY.
WHY?
PLEASE be nice and answer that question.
DEAL WITH PAUL FIRST.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/1/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: They are aware they are not to be married if they want to be a RC Priest. If they want to be a Orthodox Priest, okay.

Yes, a custom that directly contradicts what Paul wrote (about a bishop being "a man of one wife"). But it's OK if tradition is more important than scripture, right?

1 Timothy 4:1-3:
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils,
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron,
3 Forbidding to marry ...

But any Pope can change the rule.

Because popes supersede apostles?
---StrongAxe on 8/1/15


\\but if you were to find the first Apostate Pontif and call him Antichrstus#1, the succeeding ones would be called Antichristus#2, etc\\

Non sequituur.

Just who do you think the first "apostate pontif [sic]" was?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/1/15


And back to the subject at hand: Some of the Pyramids seem to have suffered water damage. Only the sturdier and earlier ones could have withstood being flooded, as the later Pyramids were mostly made up of clay bricks, and Genesis 10:25.
As to the other questions: Democrat vs. Republican - Tweedledum and Tweedledee, 1John 2:1-29.
Preservation of the Bible - Psalm 12:6-7, John 16:13-15, 17:17, 2Timothy 3:16-17.
Popes - It's difficult to figure out who is whom in the Annuario Pontificio, but if you were to find the first Apostate Pontif and call him Antichrstus#1, the succeeding ones would be called Antichristus#2, etc. until we comes to the current one.
---Glenn on 7/31/15


Strongaxe and Samuel, men do not have guns at their heads when they CHOOSE to be a Priest.
They are aware they are not to be married if they want to be a RC Priest. If they want to be a Orthodox Priest, okay.

These men IMPOSED this rule on themselves.
Funny how you both are fussing, and not them

I can't remember when the rule was imposed by which Pope.
But any Pope can change the rule.
Funny again, because not a Pope changed the rule for centuries.

I am just telling you the Pope's nickname and it is Peter.

Ever heard the saying 'Peter has spoken'?
It means whatever he (any Pope)speaks about a matter it is settled.
That's why there is only ONE RCC.
Someone is in charge in my Church.
---Nicole_Lacey on 7/31/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Nicole_Lacey:

Correct for now, but not for history. When Henry VIII's daughter Elizabeth ascended the throne, she was just called Elizabeth, but now Elizabeth I to avoid confusion. Since there have been more than one pope, just "Peter" alone is vague and confusing. WHICH "Peter said no"? (And that is NOT the "present tense").

jerry6593:

You wrote: StrongAxe: You and Brad Hicks could not be more wrong about which political party is the party of Satan

Did you actually read his article? It points out how each main Republican platform value are diametrically opposed to Jesus's teachings. If you didn't read it, you are in no position to criticize it.
---StrongAxe on 7/31/15


Good points Strong ax.

From an Orthodox website.

Orthodox priests cannot marry, once they are ordained. In the Orthodox Church, married men may be ordained. This is a practice which goes back to the earliest period 'in the history of the church. We know that some of the Apostles were married (see I Corinthians 5:5). St. Paul teaches that clergy were to be "the husband of one wife" (I Timothy 3:2 and 3:12, Titus 1:6.

In the Roman Catholic Church, this position of the Church was gradually changed so that celibacy of all clergy was imposed by the ninth century. The Church in the West changed this practice of the early Church. It is one of the differences between our Churches."
---Samuelbb7 on 7/31/15


Strongaxe, I understanding the confusion. It is the same as when people call your wife my your full name but add the letters Mrs. at the beginning.
People know it isn't you, but your wife they are calling.

Besides, if a Pope uses a name the name is no longer in uses.
So, one has to use a number behind the name.
So since Pope Francis is the first to use the name Francis, no number is needed.

Really, people should say Pope John Paul II.
Pope John Paul was pope for only one month and died in 1978.

Peter was first and no other.
Jesus gave him the keys to past on.
So Peter is used for the present Pope
---Nicole_Lacey on 7/30/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: Sorry Strongaxe, when Catholic states Peter in the present tense, we are speaking about the present Pope. Pope Francis.
That is the Pope's nickname. Peter.


This is confusing. How do you refer to the ACTUAL apostle Peter then? Having to say "The apostle Peter" each time is longer than "Peter", and saying "Peter" is longer than "Pope". Why use terminology that is confusing to others, and makes BOTH names longer? This makes no sense.
---StrongAxe on 7/29/15


Send a Free New World Order Tract


Sorry Strongaxe, when Catholic states Peter in the present tense, we are speaking about the present Pope. Pope Francis.
That is the Pope's nickname. Peter.
So, it wouldn't be in the Bible. Matthew 16 Jesus is giving every Pope after Peter the keys.
As when Jesus voiced about Moses seat in Matthew 23.

Again, you are forgetting about Paul NOT BEING MARRIED and he advised all not to marry if able.

Why are you men only concerned about Priests not being able to marry, but NO concern about NUNS being able to marry?
Why?
---Nicole_Lacey on 7/29/15


StrongAxe: You and Brad Hicks could not be more wrong about which political party is the party of Satan. Your thesis is that conservatives are against the largess of a compassionate government wanting to help the poor with never-ending entitlements. The Demoncrats are anything but compassionate (just check their personal giving statistics). They rob the just (through heavy taxes), to reward the unjust not because they care, but rather to gain votes.

They (Dems) are the party of atheism, adultery, lying, sexual perversion, baby murder and dismemberment, and even booed God at their convention.


---jerry6593 on 7/29/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: Priest can get married, but Peter said no.
The RCC realized the WISDOM of Paul's Advice not to marry.


Where did Peter say no? Not in the Bible, anyway.

It's also odd that Peter (who was married, because he had a mother-in-law) would tell others not to marry. Maybe this says a lot about mothers-in-law?

Also, the same Paul who said it was better not to marry, ALSO said that a bishop should be a "man of one wife". The first was general advice, while the second was specifically for congregation leaders. Isn't it contradictory then for a church to teach the exact opposite (i.e. it's good for lay people marry, but for church leaders not to)?
---StrongAxe on 7/28/15


Samuel, did you forget that the Apostle Paul WASN'T married and suggested others not to marry? Read the verses before 9. 1Cor 7:8
Verse 9 are for those who can't control themselves.
But even Paul's best advice is no marriages for Priest.
Actually everyone.

Priest can get married, but Peter said no.
The RCC realized the WISDOM of Paul's Advice not to marry.

If you want to marry go ahead. But, if you want to be a RC's Priest you must decide all in for Jesus or not.

The other blog speaks about evil Popes in Matthew about Moses seat.
Jesus still left them in Moses seat, but instructed them not to follow their examples.
Do what they say, but not what they do.
Trust in Jesus. It's His Church. He is in charge.
---Nicole_Lacey on 7/28/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Samuelbb7:

You wrote: By the way Peter could not be a pope. He was married.

The rule about celibate priests came relatively late. It was instituted to prevent priests from establishing family dynasties.


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: Either they trust the men GOD appointed to combine the Bible into a nice book or they don't.

A more phrasing would be "trust men who CLAIM God appointed them" or "trust men PRESUMED to be appointed by God", since we don't have God's direct word on translators or church councils. The scriptures contain no index or "list of scriptures", and quoting from them isn't enough (e.g. Jude quoted from Enoch, and Paul quoted from pagan philosophers).
---StrongAxe on 7/28/15


Many Popes have been terrible people who murdered, tortured and fought wars against other Christians.

Why Nicole do you trust them?

By the way Peter could not be a pope. He was married. Most of the following Popes never married their many mistresses.

1Corithians 9:5
Dont we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other apostles and the Lords brothers do, and as Peter does?

But the Bible says Bishops were to have only one wife. Not many mistresses.

1Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach,

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 7/28/15


Cluny, I know that King James himself didn't translate the Bible. I am just pointing out that so many people claim only Bible, but fail to realize that a name is written on the bind of their Bibles.

The Bible didn't fall from the sky.
Either they trust the men GOD appointed to combine the Bible into a nice book or they don't.
---Nicole_Lacey on 7/27/15


Cluny:

You wrote: Nicole, there's a big difference between King James VI of Scotland and I of England, on the one hand, and the Bible translation he sponsored (called the Authorized version in the UK) on the other.

Actually, they are one and the same person holding two different offices.

From Wikipedia:

James VI and I (19 June 1566 27 March 1625) was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death. The kingdoms of Scotland and England were individual sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though both were ruled by James in personal union.
---StrongAxe on 7/27/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Nicole, there's a big difference between King James VI of Scotland and I of England, on the one hand, and the Bible translation he sponsored (called the Authorized version in the UK) on the other.

His personal life does not embrue the KJV, which he himself did not translate.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/26/15


Cluny ... thank you for your comments! You are usually so perspicacious, so I'm surprised that you dod not realise that my reference to the KJV being created about 5 centuries ago was to show how unlikely that it was written (as some aver) directly by God.
Since it was created (OK by translations of translations, with bits ditched and added) only 4 centuries ago, it's even less likely to be a truly accurate version of the truth of the life of the Jews and of Jesus' teaching
---spindle on 7/26/15


Just want to to know why so many people TRUST King James so much?

Have any of you all searched his life history?

Was he a honest King?

Why do many know about King Henry the VIII more than King James who gave you all the Bible?

Amazing. That is, of your faith in King James.
---Nicole_Lacey on 7/25/15


\\In Houston they have an original King James and the Old English is very difficult to read. \\

But the KJV is not written in Old English.

It's written in an early form of MODERN English by contemporaries of William Shakespeare.

Here is an example of Old English: "Nu sculon heiregan heafonrices weard/Meatodes mectha and his modgethonc."

Doesn't sound a bit like the KJV, does it?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/24/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


True Cluny. By the way the English of the King James had to be updated way before the New King James came out. In Houston they have an original King James and the Old English is very difficult to read.

Also according to Usher the world is over six millennium old. Some more modern Scholars state the day of forming of the earth from it's void state is about 10,000 years ago. Not worried about when.

The Creation of the Universe is not given. Scientist have a guess of 14 billion years give or take about 13 million.
---Samuelbb7 on 7/24/15


\\Of course the KJV is entirely accurate. God created it ... about 5 centuries ago.\\

If God had created the KJV, it would have dropped down out of heaven already written (which did not happen), or like a book for morons, have been found in a box hidden in a field.

If God had created the KJV, it would have had no translators. But as it stands, we know the names of its translators.

So you're wrong.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/23/15


\\Of course the KJV is entirely accurate. God created it ... about 5 centuries ago.
---spindle on 7/20/15
\\

And your deep knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and other ancient and Biblical languages makes your statement 100% trustworthy, doesn't it?

There are actually places where the KJV is NOT accurate, such as in the list of instruments in Daniel 3. There the translators merely substituted musical instruments familiar to their immediate readers. (Don't try to claim this was a prophecy. It doesn't work. They were NOT commanded to worship the golden image at the sound of instruments that had not yet been invented.)

BTW, the KJV was published in 1611, 404 years ago, not 500 as you falsely said.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/20/15


spindle:

You said: Of course the KJV is entirely accurate. God created it ... about 5 centuries ago.

It's actually closer to 4 centuries (2015-1611 = 404 years). But remember that the KJV wasn't created out of nothing. It was based on translations (mostly fairly accurate) of transcriptions (mostly fairly accurate) of the original manuscripts. So if it's 99% correct, or even 90%, who are we to complain? One doesn't find any major doctrinal deviations if one goes back to original manuscripts. Only when nitpicking tiny little details (e.g. choking on gnats while swallowing camels) is there any major cause for dispute.
---StrongAxe on 7/20/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Of course the KJV is entirely accurate. God created it ... about 5 centuries ago.
---spindle on 7/20/15


jerry6593:

Yes, and right-wingers adopt man-made theories about many other things (especially conservative political and economic theories). Check out a web blog from several years ago "Christians in the hands of an angry God" by Brad Hicks. He makes a convincing argument that anyone who takes the Bible and the teachings of Jesus seriously must agree that since the 1960s, the Republican party is the party of Satan (because its platforms consistently contradict explicit teachings of Jesus), and American right-wing evangelicalism, by marrying itself to the Republican party, has become the apostate church of Satan.
---StrongAxe on 7/10/15


StrongAxe: Jesus disagreed with both the Sadducees and the Pharisees - mainly because they did not comport with the teachings of the Old Testament, but rather substituted their silly, self-satisfying, man-made theories. That is what left-wingers do when they adopt man-made theories of origins rather than (like Christ) accepting the Word of God as factual.

Stick with Jesus. Trust in Him. He has no hidden agenda (unlike the lefties), and won't steer you wrong. The Word of God will be ultimately vindicated as it always is.


---jerry6593 on 7/10/15


If that were the case, then the post flood Pyramid and Ziggurat builders were continuing a pernicious tradition, Genesis 11:4. But those built over alluvial sediment would best fit a later build date. The Egyptian time line is based on the work of Manetho. It had to be revised as some of the Kings were ruling at the same time, and the dates should not have been added together. This would also resolve the discrepancies between his, and the Greek and Hebrew Histories.
Most likely, the Jews were not great fans of Egyptian architecture, Exodus 5:9-19.
---Glenn on 7/9/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


/...the divine gift of Tare Detection (which is not one of the listed Gifts of the Spirit, and which Jesus said was not appropriate until the Final Judgment).\-StrongAxe on 7/8/15
But they were detected, just not removed.
Mat 13:26 ...then appeared the tares also.
27 ...from whence then hath it tares?
28 ...Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
30 Let both grow together until the harvest...
-Although it doesn't say that the wheat could tell.
-But, as wheat, we are to inspect the fruit.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
John 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
---michael.bradley on 7/9/15


jerry6593:

You said: StrongAxe: I realize that you are a left-wing liberal, and as such you must read the Bible with a certain amount of skepticism.

I consider myself to be a moderate, somewhat left of center. I treat right-wing extremism with a certain amount of skepticism (and also left-wing extremism). Extremists of both kinds tend to have an attitude of "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."

As I have pointed out here many times, the attitudes of Jesus and his disciples were considerably to the left of the Pharisees, who were very much to the right (and whose attitudes were very similar to those of American right-wing evangelicals and Republicans).
---StrongAxe on 7/9/15


StrongAxe: I realize that you are a left-wing liberal, and as such you must read the Bible with a certain amount of skepticism. A Christian must follow Christ as his example, and the scriptural record gives every evidence that Christ believed the accounts given in Genesis were indeed historical. Are you so certain that your (left-wing liberal) academics are right in their theories that you would doubt Christ? I'm not.


---jerry6593 on 7/9/15


jerry6593:

You said: Ussher's chronology is widely respected as an accurate expression of the record contained in the Bible.

Cluny said: Only within a very narrow and insular group.

You said: Yeh, like secularists, atheists, left wing liberals, muslims, etc. Certainly not Christians.

Not all Christians accept it. Do you presume to speak for all Christians? Also, some Christians are left-wing liberals, contrary to popular belief by right-wing conservative Christians. "I'm a real Christian but you're not" presumes the divine gift of Tare Detection (which is not one of the listed Gifts of the Spirit, and which Jesus said was not appropriate until the Final Judgment).
---StrongAxe on 7/8/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


I am sorry Jerry but I have to dismiss Usher's chronology. Many of his sources were vague and others have been shown to be false.

We both know Miller made some other mistakes.

The flood of Noah wiped out the world. I do not know when. But I believe it did.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 7/8/15


\\Yeh, like secularists, atheists, left wing liberals, muslims, etc. Certainly not Christians.\\

Not all Christians accept Ussher's chronology as divine law, jerry.

Besides, he believed in infant baptism. Did you know that?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/8/15


What is the evidence that the Great Pyramid was built in 2560BC?
Or does one just take it by faith?
---micha9344 on 7/5/15


On to more dead works, eh L2? Yours is a very sad waste of precious time.
---Leon on 7/5/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Glad we've straightened this all out. On now to greater things!
---learner2 on 7/4/15


Cluny: "Only within a very narrow and insular group."

Yeh, like secularists, atheists, left wing liberals, muslims, etc. Certainly not Christians.



---jerry6593 on 7/5/15


\\ Ussher's chronology is widely respected as an accurate expression of the record contained in the Bible. \\

Only within a very narrow and insular group.

NOT by historians and biblical archaeologists generally, which studies have changed in the last 3 or so centuries since Ussher.

Sensible historians always adjust their chronologies on the discovery of new information.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/4/15


Cluny: "So is Ussher's chronology, upon which Miller based his interpretation of Bible prophecy, and which EGW accepted."

Your lack of scholarship knows no bounds. Ussher's chronology is widely respected as an accurate expression of the record contained in the Bible. It's major criticism comes from Lyellian/Darwinian gradualists such as yourself who insist (contrary to the facts of science) that Creation occurred over millions of years.

As for the Baptist Miller and EGW, they did NOT rely on Ussher's chronology for the date of "the cleansing of the Sanctuary", but rather on the Bible only. (Dan 8:14, Dan 9:25, Eze 4:6)

You should check your facts before you embarrassing yourself.


---jerry6593 on 7/4/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


>So is Ussher's chronology, upon which Miller based his interpretation of Bible prophecy,

Nope--note the lack of proof.
---DConklin on 7/4/15


\\The Egyptian dates are notoriously inaccurate, and their reliability is in question by many scholars. \\

So is Ussher's chronology, upon which Miller based his interpretation of Bible prophecy, and which EGW accepted.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/1/15


If Bishop Ussher had known the year the Great Pyramid of Giza was built, he probably would have made a different guess.

Matthew Henry makes the same types of errors in his commentaries, because of the limited information he had available at the time of his guessing.
---David on 6/30/15


Thank you Michael for that breath of sanity. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly supposed Christians accept secular theories and dismiss the biblical record - no matter the number of times the Bible has been vindicated and the secularists have come up short.

The Egyptian dates are notoriously inaccurate, and their reliability is in question by many scholars. What next? Will these pseudo-Christians align themselves with the "space aliens built the pyramids" nut jobs seen on cable TV?



---jerry6593 on 6/30/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Cluny, you're right.
---learner2 on 6/29/15


\\Cluny, if they were not accurate, they would not print them, especially a in Bible!
---learner2 on 6/29/15\\

So, which notes are accurate: dispensationalist (pre-trib rapture) notes or anti-dispensationalist notes?

I've seen both kinds of Bibles, including editions of the KJV.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/29/15


The question behind my question here was, are the biblical chronologies trustworthy? By your answers, I can see that they are not trustworthy. So thank you for your responses.
---learner2 on 6/29/15


2348BC would be an approximate date of the flood.
Have you ever researched how the dates came to be?
Ussher's was derived directly from biblical timeframes.
The pyramid date was derived, mostly, from Khufu and his date on the Manetho scale.
Most people claim Manetho's accuracy over anyone else's, but that is a huge error.
If one would take a look at most of the ancient civilizations around the world, something of a commonality arises, that of pyramids, aka ziggurats.
Matching this commonality with Bible history, it is clear that, after the Tower of Babel, God dispersed the people throughout the world.
The last thing they were building was a ziggurat.
So civilizations arose and many continued that project. Aprox 2100BC.
---micha9344 on 6/29/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


Cluny, if they were not accurate, they would not print them, especially a in Bible!
---learner2 on 6/29/15


in Gen. Ch 11 everyone on earth lived in Babel modern day Iraq. There was no ancient Egypt at the time of the flood which is Ch. 6.
---Scott1 on 6/29/15


There is no evidence that the Pyramids existed when the great flood of the Bible covered the earth. Common sense dictates there were none then because the rulers they were built for had fancy burial sites with all kinds of artifacts which would have had to be covered too and they weren't. When men start dating things according to their puny knowledge or lack there of they'll fail every time. God Bless
---Darlene_1 on 6/29/15


\\\\Ussher's chronology is printed in my King James Bible. It must be accurate.
---learner2 on 6/28/15\\\\

Of course, all notes and commentary printed in different editions of the KJV are ALWAYS accurate and authoritative, right?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/29/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Anyway, I still assert that the pyramids did not wash away in the flood because they were very heavy.
---learner2 on 6/28/15


\\Ussher's chronology is printed in my King James Bible. It must be accurate.
---learner2 on 6/28/15\\

Merely customary (dare I say...traditional?).

It was never part of the original KJV and certainly was not in the oldest MSS.

Ussher lived in the 18th Century.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/28/15


Ussher's chronology is printed in my King James Bible. It must be accurate.
---learner2 on 6/28/15


\\I have become convinced Usher was wrong.

agape\\

The Millerite movement, from which the SDA church emerged, based its calculations and prophecy interpretation on Ussher's chronology.

Now what?

Glory to Jesus Christ
---Cluny on 6/28/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


I have become convinced Usher was wrong.

agape
---Samuelbb7 on 6/28/15


Of course, Abp. Ussher's chronology is the last word in historical dating, right?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/28/15


Never mind, I found the answer on the Internet. It's because it was really heavy.
---learner2 on 6/27/15


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.