[_ Old Earth _] Earths Age

[Runner]

Did you arrive at these three fundamental beliefs (creeds) about time on your own thinking or are you using information that other thinkers on the subject have come up with?

Your point is lost on me. I don't think those are "beliefs" or "creeds" - they are more in the vein of self-evident truths, at least for anyone who accepts the Big Bang or pretty much any other creation scenario.

If you are referring to my frequent statement that my religious beliefs are formed on the basis of my experiences, observations, studies and intuition, obviously the "studies" element includes extensive consideration of what others have thought or discovered. My point with that statement is that my religious beliefs are the result of a lifetime of hard work, not uncritical acceptance of the teachings of some supposed authority figure.

 

[chessman]

I don't think those are "beliefs" or "creeds" - they are more in the vein of self-evident truths, at least for anyone who accepts the Big Bang or pretty much any other creation scenario.

It’s not ‘self-evident’ unless you’ve actually done some evidence gathering yourself. Else you are left with believing those three fundamental claims about time as ‘truths’ based on that which Big Bang cosmologists teach you. The very term ‘Big Bang’ started out as a pejorative term by those scientists who had long taught the universe was past eternal. Times’ beginning is not “self-evident”, it had to be verified over and over before people started to believe it.

If you are referring to my frequent statement that my religious beliefs are formed on the basis of my experiences, observations, studies and intuition, obviously the "studies" element includes extensive consideration of what others have thought or discovered.

Yep, that’s my point.
Except that when it comes to Big Bang Cosmology and it’s evidence toward supporting a beginning point of time/space and matter/energy (to include Earth’s matter and space), you really have only what the cosmologists tell you about it. You’ve not made any time creation observations or had any personal experiences with the beginning of time personally. You have to trust the science as reported to you by the experts.

Your point is lost on me.

Who’s an expert about the beginning of time and matter, you or cosmologists/astrophysicists?

Who’s an expert about who Jesus claimed to be, you or John the Apostle?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

John 1:1 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 1:1&version=DLNT

 

[Edward]

It’s not ‘self-evident’ unless you’ve actually done some evidence gathering yourself. Else you are left with believing those three fundamental claims about time as ‘truths’ based on that which Big Bang cosmologists teach you. The very term ‘Big Bang’ started out as a pejorative term by those scientists who had long taught the universe was past eternal. Times’ beginning is not “self-evident”, it had to be verified over and over before people started to believe it.


Yep, that’s my point.
Except that when it comes to Big Bang Cosmology and it’s evidence toward supporting a beginning point of time/space and matter/energy (to include Earth’s matter and space), you really have only what the cosmologists tell you about it. You’ve not made any time creation observations or had any personal experiences with the beginning of time personally. You have to trust the science as reported to you by the experts.


Who’s an expert about the beginning of time and matter, you or cosmologists/astrophysicists?

Who’s an expert about who Jesus claimed to be, you or John the Apostle?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

John 1:1 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 1:1&version=DLNT

I bet we all get to witness creation after we are changed. God lives outside of time, so it'd be easy for Him to take someone out of this realm and back to creation and then anywhere else He wants them to go. He did this for John on Patmos, He also did it for Moses and let him see the creation (so he could write about it!).

The earth prolly is 14 billion years old is what I think. That gap theory that has been put forth has a lot of merit. My understanding is that a lot of Genesis was edited out by Constantine. From a very detailed creation story...to a very vague creation story.

And science isn't totally stupid. We know lots of things and can figure things out (Tower of bable ring a bell?! Lol), but some is wrong (we're good at that too, lol) and some would be conspiratorial lies to hide God. So it's not all cut and dried and we just can't see how it all fits in together, science & religion.

So they argue thinking they are separate. We all must sound like a hilarious crowd of children debating back on forth on the playground with each other to God! I bet God gets a good belly laugh at listening to us, lol.

 

[Runner]

It’s not ‘self-evident’ unless you’ve actually done some evidence gathering yourself. Else you are left with believing those three fundamental claims about time as ‘truths’ based on that which Big Bang cosmologists teach you. The very term ‘Big Bang’ started out as a pejorative term by those scientists who had long taught the universe was past eternal. Times’ beginning is not “self-evident”, it had to be verified over and over before people started to believe it.

The term"big bang" was indeed first used in an offhand way by Hoyle in 1949 as a contrast with the then-prevailing steady state theory: "“the hypothesis that all matter of the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past." (Astronomy happens to have been one of my pet interests since I was a child.) And the significance of how the term big bang (not Big Bang, as in "Big Bang cosmology") was first used is what?

Based on my own experiences, observations and studies I agree with those who have concluded that we live in an intelligently designed universe that began at a fixed point. This is my best conclusion on the basis of my experiences, observations and studies. I acknowledge that many highly intelligent and educated people do not agree with this conclusion in the slightest and that this conclusion could indeed be wrong. And the significance of this is what?

Once one accepts the premise that the universe and the earth began at fixed points, the three points as stated by me are indeed pretty much self-evident. The old-earth-versus-young-earth debate takes place entirely within this context. It is not a debate between those who believe in creation and those who believe in a steady state universe. Someone who believes in a steady state universe might well have a different perspective on what I am calling self-evident truths, but so what? If two Christians were going to debate whether Jesus was the second person of a triune godhead or "merely" the only begotten son of God, would they need to address the theory that he never existed at all?

Yep, that’s my point.
Except that when it comes to Big Bang Cosmology and it’s evidence toward supporting a beginning point of time/space and matter/energy (to include Earth’s matter and space), you really have only what the cosmolo theoruygists tell you about it. You’ve not made any time creation observations or had any personal experiences with the beginning of time personally. You have to trust the science as reported to you by the experts.

That's not a very startling "point." Did you think I had been suggesting that I go into a darkened closet, meditate on these issues, and emerge with some Runner's Theory of the universe and the nature of Jesus? The term for that, I believe, would be "insanity." I have repeatedly stated that I reach my own conclusions on the basis of my own experiences, observations, EXTENSIVE AND DILIGENT STUDIES AND REFLECTION ON THOSE STUDIES, and intuition. This is in contrast with those who do not make extensive and diligent studies and reflect on them (a very, very large percentage of people) and/or uncritically accept what supposed authority figures proclaim (especially in regard to ultimate metaphysical issues, for which the term"authority figure" is an oxymoron).

You say I have to "trust the science as reported to you by the experts." No, I don't "have to" do anything. Science, alas, has proven itself wrong on the most fundamental issues throughout the history of mankind to such an extent that I at least view scientific pronouncements with extreme skepticism. That being said, I inform myself (to the extent time allows, but I am very diligent) about the best thinking within the various scientific disciplines and adopt that which makes the most sense to me. If I were required to trust what the "experts" teach, I would regard Intelligent Design theory as a bad joke - but in fact I have weighed the merits and do not regard it as a bad joke. I would be required to be a convinced evolutionist - but in fact my experiences, observations, studies and intuition suggested to me that evolutionary theory was fundamentally misguided before I was 20 years old, when I had only a tiny fraction of the knowledge about the theory that I have now.

Who’s an expert about the beginning of time and matter, you or cosmologists/astrophysicists?

Who’s an expert about who Jesus claimed to be, you or John the Apostle?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

John 1:1 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 1:1&version=DLNT

As any lawyer knows (and I do have 35+ years of experience), eyewitness and earwitness testimony are two of the least reliable forms of evidence. More than this, the authors of the gospels each had their own target audiences and agendas. The Gospel of John is distinctly out of synch with the Synoptics. The Jesus of John makes startling claims that he makes nowhere else. My observations, experiences, studies and intuition tell me (along with many others) that the Gospel of John is not an accurate historical record. If I were a member of that segment of Christianity which believes in strict inerrancy, then I would be required to take the Gospel of John more seriously as a portrait of the historical Jesus than I do. But my observations, experiences, studies and intuition have led me away from strict inerrancy, and thus I value the Gospel of John only for what I believe it is worth (which is not "nothing," but is likewise not "a reliable historical record").

 

[Runner]

Humans didn't "invent" time.

Since a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (Ralph Waldo Emerson), I will argue against myself here. This may be closer to what Pizza is getting at.

There is a longstanding philosophical debate as to whether humans "invented" mathematics or "discovered" mathematics. Did the universe operate according to mathematical principles even before humans appeared on the scene and "discovered" these principles or have humans "invented" mathematics and imposed a mathematical overlay on the universe in an effort to make sense of it?

Essentially the same debate can be had about time. Was time passing before humans were on the scene to measure it or is time a human invention and overlay?

As much as many folks here like to think that Christianity has a monopoly on truth, both Buddhism and Taoism deal with this issue more directly than does Christianity. Taoism: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, the name that can be named is not the eternal name." Buddhism (Zen): "If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, does it make a sound?" The mysterious "observer effect" of quantum physics is in the same vein.

One of the objectives of Zen is to break free of the human tendency to define, classify and categorize. Do palm trees exist? In one sense, of course they do. In the broader sense, no they do not. "Tree" is a human invention, a convenient category in which we mentally place leafy things with trunks. "Palm tree" is another human invention, a convenient subcategory. In fact, each "palm tree" stands alone, unique unto itself. One of the objectives of Zen is to see that particular leafy green object in front of you, to appreciate its uniqueness and not quickly dismiss it as "just another tree." To become "enlightened" means literally to be "awakened" from the zombie-like stupor in which most people, including most Christians, lead their lives.

Likewise, the universe is unique in each and every moment of its existence. We take the human concept of time and, using our definitions, measuring tools and analytical abilities, determine that the universe came into existence roughly 4.5 billion years ago. But perhaps what we call time did not operate according to our rules at every moment of the universe's existence. Just the modest advances in quantum physics are enough to strongly suggest that things are not always what they seem.

When it comes to the old-earth-versus-young-earth debate, I believe that what I originally said is basically correct. Both sides posit the creation of the universe and of the earth at a fixed point, Both are using the same definition of time (solar years), measuring tools and analytical abilities. Both are operating within this closed system and arriving at vastly different conclusions (primarily because the Young Earthers regard a literal reading of Genesis 1 as axiomatic and use their dubious "science" only to prop up their interpretation of the Genesis account). There is a genuine disagreement that cannot be avoided by saying both sides might be correct. One could say "If either side is correct, it's a matter of pure luck because we have no way of knowing how the universe operated or what rules applied throughout its existence - the rules and time itself are human inventions."

 

[chessman]

And the significance of how the term big bang (not Big Bang, as in "Big Bang cosmology") was first used is what?

Until the cosmologists and astrophysicists started making substantive observations of the visible universe’s history (expansion rates, mass estimates, red-shift, background radiation, etc.) what seemed self-evident to the sciences was that the universe was past eternal. It was their observations and experiments that changed the paradigm. Much like the Apostles own experiences and observations of Jesus changed their paradigm. Especially their observation and experience with the risen Lord. So much so that Thomas changed his mind on the spot, calling Jesus God (just like John and the others did). That is, if you believe there accounts are accurate.

Based on my own experiences, observations and studies I agree with those who have concluded that we live in an intelligently designed universe that began at a fixed point.

Maybe you’d share your own experience and observation of the universe’s fixed point of beginning? What did it look like? Was it close to our solar system?

My point was ; “You’ve not made any time creation observations or had any personal experiences with the beginning of time personally. You have to trust the science as reported to you by the experts.”

Your response was

That's not a very startling "point.

I suppose not, but it is quite startling to me that you’d continue to claim to be using your own observations and experiences with a fixed point time creation universe. That is, unless you were actually there to observe it and experience it.

Did you think I had been suggesting that I go into a darkened closet, meditate on these issues, and emerge with some Runner's Theory of the universe and the nature of Jesus?

No. I think what I stated. Still do.

It’s not ‘self-evident’ unless you’ve actually done some evidence gathering yourself. Else you are left with believing those three fundamental claims about time as ‘truths’ based on that which Big Bang cosmologists teach you.

But I am willing to be corrected: What evidence for the creation of the universe have you personally experienced or observed that you could call it your own versus studying the cosmologists’ experiences and observations?

I have repeatedly stated that I reach my own conclusions on the basis of my own experiences, observations, EXTENSIVE AND DILIGENT STUDIES AND REFLECTION ON THOSE STUDIES, and intuition.

Yep, and it’s time to enter into evidence that which constitutes your OWN EXPERIENCES and OBSERVATIONS.

You say I have to "trust the science as reported to you by the experts." No, I don't "have to" do anything.

I inform myself (to the extent time allows, but I am very diligent) about the best thinking within the various scientific disciplines and adopt that which makes the most sense to me.

So you study the observations of the best thinking scientists then huh???

As any lawyer knows (and I do have 35+ years of experience), eyewitness and earwitness testimony are two of the least reliable forms of evidence.

Therefore, from the men having accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day that He was taken-up from us— one of these must become a witness of His resurrection with us”. And they put- forward two: Joseph (the one being called Barsabbas, who was called Justus), and Matthias. And having prayed, they said, “ You, Lord, heart-knower of all— appoint the one whom You chose from these two to take the place of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned-aside to go to his own place”.​

Acts 1:21-25 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 1:21-25&version=DLNT

Good thing lawyers didn’t pick Judas’s replacement then.

 

[for_his_glory]

Can anyone truly define God's time over that of man's? I can't possibly see how any of us could. I do not agree with all the topics on gotquestions.org, but do agree with this one.

https://www.gotquestions.org/God-time.html

Question: "What is God's relationship to time?"

Answer: We live in a physical world with its four known space-time dimensions of length, width, height (or depth) and time. However, God dwells in a different dimension—the spirit realm—beyond the perception of our physical senses. It’s not that God isn’t real; it’s a matter of His not being limited by the physical laws and dimensions that govern our world (Isaiah 57:15). Knowing that “God is spirit” (John 4:24), what is His relationship to time?

(read the full articles)

 

[Runner]

Maybe you’d share your own experience and observation of the universe’s fixed point of beginning? What did it look like? Was it close to our solar system?

Insofar as you are attempting to dialogue with me - and perhaps in your own mind to score debating points with what you believe to be wildly clever zingers - I believe you are simply fundamentally misguided. I am having an extremely difficult time understanding what you are even talking about.

As I have stated repeatedly and will not state again, my belief system as a whole - what I believe about the reality we occupy as well as what I believe about philosophical/metaphysical/spiritual matters - has been formulated on the basis of my extensive experiences and observations, my long and diligent studies, and my intuition. This is to be distinguished from someone whose belief system is based upon far less effort (which is true of the vast majority of people); on uncritical reliance on the pronouncements of supposed authority figures (which is true of many, many people); and/or on factors having nothing to do with truth, such as a wish to be popular or comfortable or to realize financial gain (which is likewise true of many people).

Any given aspect of my belief system may depend heavily on my experiences and observations and less on my studies - or vice-versa. In regard to many metaphysical/spiritual matters, intuition may play a decisive role. When I refer to my "studies," I am of course talking about books - literally thousands of books, far more than the average adult would read in five lifetimes. What those books contain are of course reports of the experiences, observations and studies of other persons. I decide what they are worth and factor them into my own belief system.

For example, I have had perhaps 25 fairly startling paranormal experiences of a variety of types. I have read vast quantities of the literature (as well as joined the American Society for Psychical Research, British Society for Psychical Research and other organizations). Thus, my own experiences and observations have been greatly informed by the experiences, observations and studies of others.

You sound as though you think there is some great mystery about this, or perhaps something suspect about it. I find that when closely examined, many True Believers of all types - including many Christians - couldn't tell you why they believe what they say they believe, and indeed that there is really no foundation for their "beliefs" at all apart from an appeal to some supposed authority figure.

Your point in posing challenges such as "share your own experience and observation of the universe’s fixed point of beginning? What did it look like? Was it close to our solar system?" is completely and utterly lost on me. Does the fact that I obviously have no experiences and observations of the universe's fixed point of beginning somehow, in your mind, invalidate my beliefs regarding the universe's fixed point of beginning? If so, why?

I do have direct, quite startling experiences that suggest to me the existence of a supreme intelligence that takes a providential interest in my life. I do observe the regularity in nature suggesting an intelligent designer. For the "mechanics" of how it may have worked, I rely heavily on my fairly extensive studies in the areas of astronomy, physics and Intelligent Design. For the ultimate metaphysical questions, I rely on my truly extensive studies in philosophy and theology, as well as my own intuition. Is there something suspect about this in your mind?

It strikes me that you are simply frustrated because I do not attach the same weight or importance to "evidence" to which you attach great importance.

Good thing lawyers didn’t pick Judas’s replacement then.

Here again, what is the point? OK, the disciples logically insisted on a replacement for Judas who had been with them throughout Jesus' ministry and who could witness to it ... and so? Do you think 11 lawyers would have done otherwise?

This has no bearing on your insistence that I should take the Gospel of John as a reliable historical report. The Gospel of John, which is by far the latest gospel, may well have been written (or at least informed) by someone intimately acquainted with Jesus but who had an overriding theological agenda and a particular target audience. The utter dissimilarity with the Synoptics strongly suggests that the purpose was something other than an accurate historical record, and many, many scholars have concluded that this was indeed the case. I have probably studied more about John than any other gospel. You choose to factor it into your belief system as an accurate historical record. I do not, for reasons that are good and sufficient to me. The fact that you do does not frustrate or even concern me in the slightest.

 

[chessman]

I am having an extremely difficult time understanding what you are even talking about.

Okay. Let me simplify once again my question(s) concerning the basis for your belief (how you have arrived at your conclusion) that time and the universe have fixed points of creation:

1. What observations for the creation of time have you personally experienced?

2. What observations of the creation of the universe have you personally experienced?

Your point in posing challenges such as "share your own experience and observation of the universe’s fixed point of beginning? What did it look like? Was it close to our solar system?" is completely and utterly lost on me.

Hopefully you’ll simply answer the two questions rephrased above (or my original one) and not get lost in the point or the ‘challenge’ to use your word, not mine.

Does the fact that I obviously have no experiences and observations of the universe's fixed point of beginning somehow, in your mind, invalidate my beliefs regarding the universe's fixed point of beginning?

Invalidate your beliefs, no. They are yours after all. But invalidate the different reasons you have given that lead you to your belief, yes.

Here are your three claims again:

Humans didn't "invent" time. The universe began at a specific point. The earth came into existence at a specific point.

I simply asked you on what basis do believe these claims to be true. You first said they are ‘self-evident truths’ here:

they are more in the vein of self-evident truths,

But then claimed to base your beliefs at least partially on your own experiences and observations.

If so, why?

Because when someone makes the claim; “The universe began at a specific point.”
Or
“The earth came into existence at a specific point”

I want to know their reasons for believing these claims. If they have personal experiences or observations of these claims I would love to hear their direct testimony about it. Worth a motion to compell, in fact. Very similar to how John’s Gospel is very compelling due to his being an eye-witness to Jesus’s ministry life, death and resurrection (i.e. direct testimony). Corroborated, by other eye witnesses in fact.

For the "mechanics" of how it may have worked, I rely heavily on my fairly extensive studies in the areas of astronomy, physics and Intelligent Design.

Okay. I certainly can believe that. How heavily are you relying on others’ experiences and observations versus your own experiences and observations though, is the question?

Here again, what is the point? OK, the disciples logically insisted on a replacement for Judas who had been with them throughout Jesus' ministry and who could witness to it ... and so? Do you think 11 lawyers would have done otherwise?

Yes. In fact I know historically that’s exactly what they did.

And they stirred-up the people and the elders and the scribes. And having suddenly-come-upon him [Stephen, an eye-witness], they seized him and brought him to the Sanhedrin. And they put- forward false witnesses, saying, “This man does not cease speaking words against this holy place and the Law.​

...​

Acts 6:12-13 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 6:12-13&version=DLNT

The Roman lawyers being no better even hiried a Jewish one (Josephus) to write ‘alternative’ accounts.

The utter dissimilarity with the Synoptics strongly suggests that the purpose was something other than an accurate historical record, and many, many scholars have concluded that this was indeed the case.

And ‘utter dissimilarity’ evidences are??? (Self-evident???)
And the purpose you strongly suggest is???

Maybe winning a writing contest with 1st prize being a boat cruise to Rome with an upside down view of the city (nailed to a cross), or 2nd prize being an all expense paid vacation to the resort island of Patmos, or 3rd prize being a bungee jump from the lawyers’ building (without a bungee)?

 

[Razeontherock]

How old is the earth?

When the Gospels were written, by who, and why would make a great thread.

 

[Barbarian]

You mad because I believe creation is approximately 6000 yrs like the Bible says ? I believe what Jesus believed, you ?

Jesus never said creation is about 6000 years old. Nor does anything in the Bible. That is man's revision of scripture.

 

[Truthfrees]

I believe creation is approximately 6000 yrs like the Bible says ? I believe what Jesus believed, you ?

1. The word translated ‘replenish’ (KJV) simply means ‘fill’ in the Hebrew.
2. In the English of King James’ day, ‘replenish’ also usually meant ‘fill’, not ‘refill’.
3. The word ‘replenish’ therefore cannot be used to support ideas about a previous creation, which was destroyed. In any case, such erroneous theories, invented in response to the ‘millions of years’ idea, must hold to the unbiblical notion that there was death and suffering before Adam’s sin.

Years from Adam to the flood , years from the flood to Jesus, years AD since ?

i agree with this

 

[Runner]

Okay. Let me simplify once again my question(s) concerning the basis for your belief (how you have arrived at your conclusion) that time and the universe have fixed points of creation:

1. What observations for the creation of time have you personally experienced?

2. What observations of the creation of the universe have you personally experienced?

Come on, no one is this dense. You are playing some game that is amusing to you, and I suspect only to you. No one, including me, has made any personal observations of the creation of the universe. In this aspect of my belief system, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED, I rely on my personal experiences of a providential God, my observations that we live in an intelligently designed universe, and my fairly extensive studies of astronomy, physics and the Intelligent Design literature as to what the mechanics may have been.

No Christian doubts that we live in a created universe and that the creation, virtually by definition, occurred at some point. Time, as we calculate it, began at that point. Once one accepts that we live in a created universe, the fact that it was created at some point and that time for creatures within it began at that point are indeed self-evident truths. As I state in post #305, which you apparently did not read, we cannot be entirely sure that time has operated in the same manner since the creation - in calculating the age of the universe, all we can do is play the hand we have been dealt (i.e., use the abilities and tools we have been given).

Done. 'Bye. We will declare you the winner of whatever game it is that you are playing. (If someone else can enlighten me as to what point you think he is making, please do.)

 

[Runner]

Yes. In fact I know historically that’s exactly what they did.

And ‘utter dissimilarity’ evidences are??? (Self-evident???)

Off the topic of this thread, but just for the sake of accuracy:

1. Even in the translation you are using, the "they" in the passage you quote are identified as "Hellenistic Jewish slaves who were freed and then returned to Israel." There is no indication whatsoever that "lawyers" were involved. (The Jewish scribes, who were not the "they" of the passage you cite, were highly educated elected officials who were sometimes called "lawyers" because they transcribed and commented on the Torah, but they were not even vaguely lawyers in the modern sense.)

2. Josephus was not a lawyer in any sense. He was a translator, biographer and historian.

3. Stephen was not an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus. He was one of seven deacons appointed by the Apostles to distribute food and charitable aid to poorer members of the community in the early church. Even in the churches that venerate Stephen as a saint, there is no tradition that he had any association with Jesus' ministry. If you are talking about his dying vision, that obviously had not yet taken place in the passage you cite.

4. More than 80% of John is not found in the Synoptics. 90% of the passages in John specifically concerning Jesus are unique to John. Only 8% of John has parallels in the Synoptics. The dissimilarity is indeed self-evident. No one, even those who give John as much or greater weight than the Synoptics, disputes this.

 

[chessman]

And they stirred-up the people and the elders and the scribes. And having suddenly-come-upon him [Stephen, an eye-witness], they seized him and brought him to the Sanhedrin. And they put- forward false witnesses,

As a judicial body the Sanhedrin constituted a supreme court, to which belonged in the first instance the trial of false prophets, of the high priest and other priests, and also of a tribe fallen into idolatry. As an administrative council, it determined other important matters. Jesus was arraigned before this body as a false prophet, ( John 11:47 ) and Peter, John, Stephen and Paul as teachers of error and deceivers of the people.​

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/sanhedrin/​

There is no indication whatsoever that "lawyers" were involved.

Is this opinion from your own observations and experiences with 1st Century Jewish culture or is it from your intuition? Because Bible study says otherwise.

they were not even vaguely lawyers in the modern sense.)

The Greek word grammateus translated scribe means writer. The scribes were the ones who drew up legal documents. They also copied the Old Testament Scripture. They also devoted themselves to the study of the law, and the determination of its applications on daily life.​

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1315.cfm​

Josephus was not a lawyer in any sense. He was a translator, biographer and historian.

In his early twenties, he traveled to negotiate with Emperor Nero for the release of 12 Jewish priests. Upon his return to Jerusalem, at the outbreak of the First Jewish-Roman War, Josephus was appointed the military governor of Galilee,[13] but eventually he strove with John of Gischala over the control of Galilee, who like Josephus, had amassed to himself a large band of supporters from Gischala (Gush Halab) and Gabara,[a] including the support of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.[17]​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus​

Stephen was not an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus.

I didn’t say he was. But he most definitely was an eye-witness of the risen Jesus and gave testimony before the lawyers to

Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed the ones having announced-beforehand about the coming of the righteous One, of Whom you now became betrayers and murderers— you who received the Law by the directions of angels and did not keep it!” But being full of the Holy Spirit, having looked-intently into heaven, he saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right side of God.​

Acts 7:52-53,55 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 7:52-53,55&version=DLNT

More than 80% of John is not found in the Synoptics.

So that makes it ‘utterly dissimilar’? It’s a more comprehensive, more detailed eye-witness testimony of God, born in flesh. Longer and more details doesn’t mean ‘dissimilar’.

syn·op·tic
səˈnäptik/Submit
adjective
1.
of or forming a general summary or synopsis.

90% of the passages in John specifically concerning Jesus are unique to John.

100% of the passages in John specifically concerning Jesus are John’s own observations and experiences and testimony.

Only 8% of John has parallels in the Synoptics.

All the Gospels affirm Jesus is Lord.

The dissimilarity is indeed self-evident.

Ridiculous.

 

[Barbarian]

Unfortunately, carbon dating only works to determine the age of substances that were once living.

Right. And it only goes out to maybe 50,000 years at best, before the trace amount is too small to say anything about it.

Fortunately, there are other long-lived elements that work more effectively for geological and paleontological purposes.

 

[Jim Parker]

As a devout Christian, I have no doubt what I believe and no history or science book will change that.

Enjoy

 

[Jim Parker]

IMO, the creation account is plain, simple, detailed and explicit in being six literal days and a day of rest.

IMO, Genesis 1:1 -2:3 is the standard genealogy with which any ancient, near eastern story (episode, epic, myth, historical narrative ) would be introduced.(in this case the genealogy of the creation) It is not meant to be historically or scientifically accurate but, rather tho introduce a narrative.

A very good illustration of a genealogy being used to introduce a narrative is found at Matthew chapter 1. Matthew describes 3 sets of 14 generations which are not historically accurate but are given to relate that Jesus is the son of David (the number of whose name is 14), that He is the anointed one; the Christ who will reign on David's throne forever.

iakov the fool.