[_ Old Earth _] Question 2. Diverse people groups, Pyramids, and the flood.

[Orion]

2. How do we get all the diversity of people and numbers from 4 couples roughly 4,000 years ago? How do we have egyptian pyramids constructed around the same time as "the flood"?

 

[Featherbop]

How do we get all the diversity of people and numbers from 4 couples roughly 4,000 years ago?

Well I'll give you the short answer.

We don't.

 

[mondar]

Re: Question 2. Diverse people groups, Pyramids, and the flo

2. How do we get all the diversity of people and numbers from 4 couples roughly 4,000 years ago? How do we have egyptian pyramids constructed around the same time as "the flood"?

Orion, do you know the history behind what is called Bishop Ussher's chronology? Do you understand why the vast majority of Christians reject the 4000 BC creation date?

I am not a scientist, and have much to learn about science. I would be happy to discuss the theological implications of science, but is there any chance we can do this without the myths that all Christians believe in a creation date of 4004BC?

 

[Orion]

Actually, this is more about the flood that was supposed to have taken place about 4,000 years ago, according to strict Christian doctrine, in which only 4 couples survived a global flood yet somehow account for the many various people groups around the world, some who have history that is broken past the time where the said flood was to have occurred. This includes the Egyptian Pyramids and the history surrounding them.

Mondar, see my other post about the age of the universe. When you do, you'll see my response about that.

 

[Barbarian]

Nothing in Christian doctrine says a worldwide flood took place 4,000 years ago. That is a relatively modern doctrine, one that is not held by most Christians.

 

[Orion]

Really? I was under the assumption that most DID hold to that view. When SHOULD that date be then? Or is that undeterminable?

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. Catholics are slightly more than half of all Christians. No such doctrine for them.

Eastern Orthodox are the next largest group. That's not part of their beliefs, either.

Anglicans don't have it.

Lutherans generally don't, but a synod or two in the US does.

It's pretty much evangelicals in the US. And not all of them.

 

[peace4all]

The problem your running into is the difference between "Christians" and "Christians"

Some groups in America "Call" themselves Christians, because as a child they have been brainwashed with stories and fed lies and half truths.
Some groups in America Call themselves Christians, because they have read the bible, and follow the bible in the most logical sense. - These are the "True" Christians in my belief-

The problem with it is, people don't often like to read, especially a really old hard to understand book, when instead, they can get some guy to stand behind a pulpit, and tell them what to think. WHen that happens, they are not being told what the bible says, but what the guy behind the pulpit THINKS it says, or WANTS it to say, or has been confused to think that is what is said.

As with almost any "Controversial" subject, doing the research on your own, is the only true way to gain intelligence on the subject.

Sadly, you probably live in one of the many parts of America overrun by "Christians" that have not read the entire bible (or even most of it) can not list you more than 3 commandments at any time, and believe that the earth was created 4000 years ago, as well as the pyramids, a massive flood, and the dinosaurs that roamed around at the same time and played with the 4 couples that inbred to produce enough children to start this population...

At-least, that is what I have come to realize. You will find many more of the more intelligent "I have read the bible and made my own conclusions from it" people on this forum, than you will in real life. This is a great place to learn the discrepancies between what "Christians" say to get votes, and what Christians actually are supposed to follow.

 

[Fnerb]

Nothing in Christian doctrine says a worldwide flood took place 4,000 years ago. That is a relatively modern doctrine, one that is not held by most Christians.

I have a hard time believing any Bible-teaching synod or establishment would not teach about the flood.

Where are you getting your information from?

 

[Barbarian]

Most Christians (slightly over 50%) are Roman Catholic. The modern interpretation of a literal worldwide flood is not Roman Catholic doctrine.

Next largest are Eastern Orthodox. Not a doctrine for them, either.

Next is Anglican Churches. Not them, either.

And not so for many Protestant churches.

The idea depends on the mistranslation of "eretz" (land) where the Bible says the entire land was covered. Since "eretz" is used in a number of ways, including a discription of the land of Israel, it's not hard to see how the misunderstanding came about.

 

[Fnerb]

Most Christians (slightly over 50%) are Roman Catholic. The modern interpretation of a literal worldwide flood is not Roman Catholic doctrine.

Next largest are Eastern Orthodox. Not a doctrine for them, either.

Next is Anglican Churches. Not them, either.

And not so for many Protestant churches.

The idea depends on the mistranslation of "eretz" (land) where the Bible says the entire land was covered. Since "eretz" is used in a number of ways, including a discription of the land of Israel, it's not hard to see how the misunderstanding came about.

This is the first time I have heard anything like this.

Do you have a source where I could read about it?

 

[Barbarian]

Here's a site that explains why we can't assume "eretz" means "the whole world."
http://www.geocities.com/petepettingell/theflood.html

I don't agree with all that is written there, but it does explain the confusion of "land" with "whole world."

"Whole world" is a recent idea, not Christian doctrine.

 

[peace4all]

There are many problems with trying to translate and re-translate a document that is so old, and has had the oppurtunity to be altered, or, after the original documents, those were first translated incorrectly.

The Red Sea, and the "Sea of reeds" are a pretty big problem for me :-P The Red Sea makes sense in the ability to drown the troops, however the fact that chariots can't catch a slow moving caravan doesn't make sense. The sea of reeds being able to be parted by the wind (which happens all of the time since it is merely a shallow swampy area) and its geographical closeness to the actual area of egypt being discussed earlier in the bible, makes it a more logical choice, but then it defeats the entire purpose of a "Miracle parting" and establishes a logical reasoning that, at the time could have been interpreted as god interfering (or possibly he did with the wind) and would make more sense historically.