M
messengerdove
Guest
Could someone tell me when the aprox. time line of the creation of Adam?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
J
John the Baptist
Guest
messengerdove said:
You mean year & date, or the 7 day time line?? ---John
G
Georges
Guest
Somewhere around the 6000 year mark....
The Jewish Calendar places us 5766 years since Adam however, there is a discrepency found that should add approx 240 years to the 5766...
The exact year isn't known....What is known is in Judaism, the Messiah was expected during the 4000 year mark....Jesus did appear at that time.
It is known that Jesus appeared 2000 years ago (+/- a few years). So if Jesus appeared at the 4000th year mark and that was 2000 years ago....that would mean that we are at (or very close) to the end of 6000 years heading into the Messianic Millennial period, or the 1000 years of Sabbath rest.
The Jewish Calendar places us 5766 years since Adam however, there is a discrepency found that should add approx 240 years to the 5766...
The exact year isn't known....What is known is in Judaism, the Messiah was expected during the 4000 year mark....Jesus did appear at that time.
It is known that Jesus appeared 2000 years ago (+/- a few years). So if Jesus appeared at the 4000th year mark and that was 2000 years ago....that would mean that we are at (or very close) to the end of 6000 years heading into the Messianic Millennial period, or the 1000 years of Sabbath rest.
M
messengerdove
Guest
Thank you.
In my opinion time is running out. Are we not close to that 1,000 year of Sabbath rest?
This is interesting if you or someone would want to take it a step further for me. I am sorry for the delay in getting back to this forum. I had misplaced the logg in information and found it again today. So many places to go here.
messengerdove
In my opinion time is running out. Are we not close to that 1,000 year of Sabbath rest?
This is interesting if you or someone would want to take it a step further for me. I am sorry for the delay in getting back to this forum. I had misplaced the logg in information and found it again today. So many places to go here.
messengerdove
G
Georges
Guest
messengerdove said:Thank you.
In my opinion time is running out. Are we not close to that 1,000 year of Sabbath rest?
I think we are.....Getting closer daily...
This is interesting if you or someone would want to take it a step further for me. I am sorry for the delay in getting back to this forum. I had misplaced the logg in information and found it again today. So many places to go here.
messengerdove
R
Rick the holypig
Guest
K
KaerbEmEvig
Guest
It's 5766 years + 6 days of Creation.
There's no such a rule as to add 240 years, and as I will show further this was made up by you to prove your further lies.
Messiah was not expected at approx. 4000 year, he is expected to show up before 6000 year, but can show up later - Jews will always await, no matter what.
You made this 'add 240' and '4000 year' up to prove the point that 6000 - 2000 = 4000 = Jesus. That's the silliest lie I have ever seen. If you have no idea abou Judaism, at least don't lie to people on public forums, someone will spot that and point your lies out.
Ditto.
Messiah was meant to start Messianic Era - you whole lie falls into pieces now. Bravo, at least try harder when you start to make things up.
J
John the Baptist
Guest
Don't know! :wink:
Noah was given the year for the end of the pre/flood (antediluvian) ones 'Striving of the Holy Spirit' upon them. Genesis 6:3 The door of the Ark was shut just after that.
Matthew 25:10
We are given the Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15 verses for some documentation, if one believes God?
One might find the True Virgin fold's starting date? 1844 say Adventists! Then add 120 years of the Revelation 14:6-10 preaching message, for more fun.. then add the 40 years for the history of the old church of Israel 'wondering in the wilderness' to this new fold. (asleep! Matthew 25:1-6) Then come up with 2004.
Now give the Midnight Cry to these ones [alone] of seven years, or 'times', (Daniel 9:27 or Leviticus 16:19) and... then, once again, come up with an DESOLATE of Christ fold, and once again in the midst of the week. Matthew 23:38.
And Revelation 12:17 has found that the last few years of the seven, (3 1/2 yrs., 42 mos., = 1260 days) would find this 'remnant' group organized, and with Christ's soon second coming very soon afterwards!
And don't overlook Matthew 10:23 & whom it was that was 'shaken out'?
See 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3! :wink:
What does that give us? 120 yrs + 40yrs. + 7 yrs. = 167
167 yrs from what? Well, if 7th day Adventist were right with 1844? we could add 167 to 1844 and come up with 2011? (there/a/bouts :wink: ) Can the earth last another 5 years?? :o
If I were a time setting type of guy, the [year] might be 'close'?? :fadein:
But the only thing so far that I hold to, is the Word as seen in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6 as to the time element. But, yes, I do think that before Christ returns the second time, that these ones will be told the year! See the K.J. of Joel 2:10-11 & Joel 3:16-17.
Noah was given the year for the end of the pre/flood (antediluvian) ones 'Striving of the Holy Spirit' upon them. Genesis 6:3 The door of the Ark was shut just after that.
Matthew 25:10We are given the Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15 verses for some documentation, if one believes God?
One might find the True Virgin fold's starting date? 1844 say Adventists! Then add 120 years of the Revelation 14:6-10 preaching message, for more fun.. then add the 40 years for the history of the old church of Israel 'wondering in the wilderness' to this new fold. (asleep! Matthew 25:1-6) Then come up with 2004.
Now give the Midnight Cry to these ones [alone] of seven years, or 'times', (Daniel 9:27 or Leviticus 16:19) and... then, once again, come up with an DESOLATE of Christ fold, and once again in the midst of the week. Matthew 23:38.
And Revelation 12:17 has found that the last few years of the seven, (3 1/2 yrs., 42 mos., = 1260 days) would find this 'remnant' group organized, and with Christ's soon second coming very soon afterwards!
And don't overlook Matthew 10:23 & whom it was that was 'shaken out'?
See 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3! :wink:
What does that give us? 120 yrs + 40yrs. + 7 yrs. = 167
167 yrs from what? Well, if 7th day Adventist were right with 1844? we could add 167 to 1844 and come up with 2011? (there/a/bouts :wink: ) Can the earth last another 5 years?? :o
If I were a time setting type of guy, the [year] might be 'close'?? :fadein:
But the only thing so far that I hold to, is the Word as seen in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6 as to the time element. But, yes, I do think that before Christ returns the second time, that these ones will be told the year! See the K.J. of Joel 2:10-11 & Joel 3:16-17.
G
Georges
Guest
KaerbEmEvig said:
There's no such a rule as to add 240 years, and as I will show further this was made up by you to prove your further lies.
Laughable....this info from a website from many that give the same info on the missing 240 years...."further lies"? bravo....
Way to go....of course the exact year isn't known....but it is approximately known...
How about this for some more lies....
From the website....http://www.hebroots.org/2housesch5.html
THE JEWISH MESSIAH WILL COME
AFTER 4,000 YEARS OF TIME
It is traditional Jewish (house of Judah) understanding that the Jewish Messiah (Mashiach) would come 4,000 years after the creation of Adam and Eve. In the Talmud in Sanhedrin 97 it is written:
"The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; [i.e. no Torah. It is a tradition that Abraham was fifty-two years old when he began to convert men to the worship of the true God; from Adam until then, two thousand years elapsed] two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, [i.e. Messiah will come within that period] but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost. [He should have come at the beginning of the last two thousand years; the delay is due to our sins.]"
Therefore, as recorded in the Talmud in Sanhedrin 97, there was an expectation that the Jewish Messiah (Mashiach) would come after 4,000 years of time. In an article in the Jewish Press newspaper (Brooklyn, New York) by Rabbi Sholom Klass entitled, The Coming of the Messiah, he explains that there was a high expectation among the Jewish people for a Jewish Messiah (Mashiach) during the first century. In his article, Rabbi Sholom Klass writes:
"The belief in a personal Messiah reached its highest tension during that period of the first century when Rome sent her despotic procurators to rule over Judea. The yoke was most oppressive and the Jews awaited a leader whom G-d would send to articulate their latent spirit of rebellion and free them from the Roman tyranny."
That should clear that up...and there is more (lies) if you like...
Messiah was not expected at approx. 4000 year, he is expected to show up before 6000 year, but can show up later - Jews will always await, no matter what.
I think I just proved you wrong....good try anyway....
You made this 'add 240' and '4000 year' up to prove the point that 6000 - 2000 = 4000 = Jesus. That's the silliest lie I have ever seen. If you have no idea abou Judaism, at least don't lie to people on public forums, someone will spot that and point your lies out.
Again...I just think I proved you wrong...that was way too easy...Just because you've never heard it before I won't call others liars...it really makes you look bad
Ditto.
Ditto....
Messiah was meant to start Messianic Era - you whole lie falls into pieces now. Bravo, at least try harder when you start to make things up.
more lies...oh oh....nice try....care to try again? I think most on the forum know I can produce the back up for my posts....you'll learn too.
[/quote:f64cc]
Please refrain from the "liar" jargon...I'm embarassed for you....How about trying to quit that and refuting the information I cited above...
G
Georges
Guest
KaerbEmEvig said:
There's no such a rule as to add 240 years, and as I will show further this was made up by you to prove your further lies.
Laughable....this info from a website from many that give the same info on the missing 240 years...."further lies"? bravo....
Way to go....of course the exact year isn't known....but it is approximately known...
How about this for some more lies....
From the website....http://www.hebroots.org/2housesch5.html
THE JEWISH MESSIAH WILL COME
AFTER 4,000 YEARS OF TIME
It is traditional Jewish (house of Judah) understanding that the Jewish Messiah (Mashiach) would come 4,000 years after the creation of Adam and Eve. In the Talmud in Sanhedrin 97 it is written:
"The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; [i.e. no Torah. It is a tradition that Abraham was fifty-two years old when he began to convert men to the worship of the true God; from Adam until then, two thousand years elapsed] two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, [i.e. Messiah will come within that period] but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost. [He should have come at the beginning of the last two thousand years; the delay is due to our sins.]"
Therefore, as recorded in the Talmud in Sanhedrin 97, there was an expectation that the Jewish Messiah (Mashiach) would come after 4,000 years of time. In an article in the Jewish Press newspaper (Brooklyn, New York) by Rabbi Sholom Klass entitled, The Coming of the Messiah, he explains that there was a high expectation among the Jewish people for a Jewish Messiah (Mashiach) during the first century. In his article, Rabbi Sholom Klass writes:
"The belief in a personal Messiah reached its highest tension during that period of the first century when Rome sent her despotic procurators to rule over Judea. The yoke was most oppressive and the Jews awaited a leader whom G-d would send to articulate their latent spirit of rebellion and free them from the Roman tyranny."
That should clear that up...and there is more (lies) if you like...
Messiah was not expected at approx. 4000 year, he is expected to show up before 6000 year, but can show up later - Jews will always await, no matter what.
I think I just proved you wrong....good try anyway....
You made this 'add 240' and '4000 year' up to prove the point that 6000 - 2000 = 4000 = Jesus. That's the silliest lie I have ever seen. If you have no idea abou Judaism, at least don't lie to people on public forums, someone will spot that and point your lies out.
Again...I just think I proved you wrong...that was way too easy...Just because you've never heard it before I won't call others liars...it really makes you look bad
Ditto.
Ditto....
Messiah was meant to start Messianic Era - you whole lie falls into pieces now. Bravo, at least try harder when you start to make things up.
more lies...oh oh....nice try....care to try again? I think most on the forum know I can produce the back up for my posts....you'll learn too.
[/quote:137a4]
Please refrain from the "liar" jargon...I'm embarassed for you....How about trying to quit that and refuting the information I cited above...
K
KaerbEmEvig
Guest
Laughable....this info from a website from many that give the same info on the missing 240 years...."further lies"? bravo....
This is the only Jewish website held by Rabbis, enough said.
How about this for some more lies....
This is exactly what you just said - lies. You use a Christian site to prove Bible says this and that. I can use Mormon site I can use Jehova Witness site to prove their points... on the Bible itself. That doesn't mean they are right, they simply manipulate the Bible text, just like your Christian site (http://www.hebroots.com) does.
They might have expected messiah, but those who did were Apocaliptics: a shootoff from Essenes sect, which Jesus derived from (even quoting many passages from Dead Sea Scrolls).
That should clear that up...and there is more (lies) if you like...
That's called conjecture, a guesswork. I assume I can call these, also, lies.
I think I just proved you wrong....good try anyway....
You didn't prove anything - where's the scripture? Where's a Jewish site saying that? Christian site saying such bullcrap does not prove anything because source is CERTAINLY biased.
Again...I just think I proved you wrong...that was way too easy...Just because you've never heard it before I won't call others liars...it really makes you look bad
You only think you proved me wrong because showing some text written by some Christian fundamentalist is not goin' to prove anything - biased source = non reliable.
It really makes you looks bad when you have no idea how to prove it so you reach out for Christian sites...
Ditto....
Ditto.
more lies...oh oh....nice try....care to try again? I think most on the forum know I can produce the back up for my posts....you'll learn too.
Back up? From a Christian site? Wow, then they surerly must also know that your back up is clearly biased towards your opinion. And don't try to imply my source is biased because when talking about Judaism as a religion, Jewish source is certainly the most reliable source.
Please refrain from the "liar" jargon...I'm embarassed for you....How about trying to quit that and refuting the information I cited above...
I'm not gonna quit that because it is obvious you use a biased source to try to prove your lies...
This is the only Jewish website held by Rabbis, enough said.
How about this for some more lies....
This is exactly what you just said - lies. You use a Christian site to prove Bible says this and that. I can use Mormon site I can use Jehova Witness site to prove their points... on the Bible itself. That doesn't mean they are right, they simply manipulate the Bible text, just like your Christian site (http://www.hebroots.com) does.
They might have expected messiah, but those who did were Apocaliptics: a shootoff from Essenes sect, which Jesus derived from (even quoting many passages from Dead Sea Scrolls).
That should clear that up...and there is more (lies) if you like...
That's called conjecture, a guesswork. I assume I can call these, also, lies.
I think I just proved you wrong....good try anyway....
You didn't prove anything - where's the scripture? Where's a Jewish site saying that? Christian site saying such bullcrap does not prove anything because source is CERTAINLY biased.
Again...I just think I proved you wrong...that was way too easy...Just because you've never heard it before I won't call others liars...it really makes you look bad
You only think you proved me wrong because showing some text written by some Christian fundamentalist is not goin' to prove anything - biased source = non reliable.
It really makes you looks bad when you have no idea how to prove it so you reach out for Christian sites...
Ditto....
Ditto.
more lies...oh oh....nice try....care to try again? I think most on the forum know I can produce the back up for my posts....you'll learn too.
Back up? From a Christian site? Wow, then they surerly must also know that your back up is clearly biased towards your opinion. And don't try to imply my source is biased because when talking about Judaism as a religion, Jewish source is certainly the most reliable source.
Please refrain from the "liar" jargon...I'm embarassed for you....How about trying to quit that and refuting the information I cited above...
I'm not gonna quit that because it is obvious you use a biased source to try to prove your lies...
G
Georges
Guest
KaerbEmEvig said:Laughable....this info from a website from many that give the same info on the missing 240 years...."further lies"? bravo....
This is the only Jewish website held by Rabbis, enough said.
How about this for some more lies....
This is exactly what you just said - lies. You use a Christian site to prove Bible says this and that. I can use Mormon site I can use Jehova Witness site to prove their points... on the Bible itself. That doesn't mean they are right, they simply manipulate the Bible text, just like your Christian site (http://www.hebroots.com) does.
They might have expected messiah, but those who did were Apocaliptics: a shootoff from Essenes sect, which Jesus derived from (even quoting many passages from Dead Sea Scrolls).
That should clear that up...and there is more (lies) if you like...
That's called conjecture, a guesswork. I assume I can call these, also, lies.
I think I just proved you wrong....good try anyway....
You didn't prove anything - where's the scripture? Where's a Jewish site saying that? Christian site saying such bullcrap does not prove anything because source is CERTAINLY biased.
Again...I just think I proved you wrong...that was way too easy...Just because you've never heard it before I won't call others liars...it really makes you look bad
You only think you proved me wrong because showing some text written by some Christian fundamentalist is not goin' to prove anything - biased source = non reliable.
It really makes you looks bad when you have no idea how to prove it so you reach out for Christian sites...
Ditto....
Ditto.
more lies...oh oh....nice try....care to try again? I think most on the forum know I can produce the back up for my posts....you'll learn too.
Back up? From a Christian site? Wow, then they surerly must also know that your back up is clearly biased towards your opinion. And don't try to imply my source is biased because when talking about Judaism as a religion, Jewish source is certainly the most reliable source.
Please refrain from the "liar" jargon...I'm embarassed for you....How about trying to quit that and refuting the information I cited above...
I'm not gonna quit that because it is obvious you use a biased source to try to prove your lies...
Anyone else with any substance have anything to offer....? evidently mr.k does not.... :wink:
G
Georges
Guest
KaerbEmEvig said:Laughable....this info from a website from many that give the same info on the missing 240 years...."further lies"? bravo....
This is the only Jewish website held by Rabbis, enough said.
How about this for some more lies....
This is exactly what you just said - lies. You use a Christian site to prove Bible says this and that. I can use Mormon site I can use Jehova Witness site to prove their points... on the Bible itself. That doesn't mean they are right, they simply manipulate the Bible text, just like your Christian site (http://www.hebroots.com) does.
They might have expected messiah, but those who did were Apocaliptics: a shootoff from Essenes sect, which Jesus derived from (even quoting many passages from Dead Sea Scrolls).
That should clear that up...and there is more (lies) if you like...
That's called conjecture, a guesswork. I assume I can call these, also, lies.
I think I just proved you wrong....good try anyway....
You didn't prove anything - where's the scripture? Where's a Jewish site saying that? Christian site saying such bullcrap does not prove anything because source is CERTAINLY biased.
Again...I just think I proved you wrong...that was way too easy...Just because you've never heard it before I won't call others liars...it really makes you look bad
You only think you proved me wrong because showing some text written by some Christian fundamentalist is not goin' to prove anything - biased source = non reliable.
It really makes you looks bad when you have no idea how to prove it so you reach out for Christian sites...
Ditto....
Ditto.
more lies...oh oh....nice try....care to try again? I think most on the forum know I can produce the back up for my posts....you'll learn too.
Back up? From a Christian site? Wow, then they surerly must also know that your back up is clearly biased towards your opinion. And don't try to imply my source is biased because when talking about Judaism as a religion, Jewish source is certainly the most reliable source.
Please refrain from the "liar" jargon...I'm embarassed for you....How about trying to quit that and refuting the information I cited above...
I'm not gonna quit that because it is obvious you use a biased source to try to prove your lies...
Anyone else with any substance have anything to offer....? evidently mr.k does not.... :wink:
K
KaerbEmEvig
Guest
At this current moment it is me proving you wrong and not vice versa - you ask why? Because I gave a Jewish source while you gave a biased Christian source. Now, weren't we talking about Jewish and not Christian culture? Oh yeah! We were... :wink:
J
John the Baptist
Guest
KaerbEmEvig said:
******
John here:
Matthew 23:38
Is that verse too short for the point?
Well, what I am saying is that it would be like Eve going to the forbidden tree, while full well knowing that it was the 'fallen' apostate angel that was there talking to her, yet, going there for the reason that she might be able to learn a thing or two from the 'desolate' one.
tim-from-pa
Member
I see that there is a little disagreement on the date of Adam, so as the family genealogist I decided to trace the lineage back several years ago from King David to Adam where the bible has an unbroken genealogy. Instead of debating this, I wonder how many people have actually done this to see for themselves?
When I did this, assuming that King David existed in the 1000BC timeframe according to history, I actually get an earlier date than the traditional bishop Ussher of 4004BC. I have to scrape up my notes somewhere, but if I remember correctly, I arrived somewhere around the 4100BC area.
That being said One has to remember that in genealogies sometimes a generation or two is skipped and a grandfather, and even back to one's great, great, great..... grandfather can be called one's "father" as Jesus was oftentimes called the "son of David". Therefore, it could be longer.
Proof of the skipping generations can be found in Matthew's genealogy. When it is said 14 generations between events, they writer simply meant 14 generations listed where this may have been some sort of lyric to remember the genealogy (it was suggested).
Supposedly, although this will not convince skeptics (who probably don't know anything past their own grandparents anyway), some people can trace their lineage all the way back to Adam. I can see that happening if one can trace themselves to royalty.
When I did this, assuming that King David existed in the 1000BC timeframe according to history, I actually get an earlier date than the traditional bishop Ussher of 4004BC. I have to scrape up my notes somewhere, but if I remember correctly, I arrived somewhere around the 4100BC area.
That being said One has to remember that in genealogies sometimes a generation or two is skipped and a grandfather, and even back to one's great, great, great..... grandfather can be called one's "father" as Jesus was oftentimes called the "son of David". Therefore, it could be longer.
Proof of the skipping generations can be found in Matthew's genealogy. When it is said 14 generations between events, they writer simply meant 14 generations listed where this may have been some sort of lyric to remember the genealogy (it was suggested).
Supposedly, although this will not convince skeptics (who probably don't know anything past their own grandparents anyway), some people can trace their lineage all the way back to Adam. I can see that happening if one can trace themselves to royalty.
J
John the Baptist
Guest
Says who?
What educated 'arm of flesh' ones are we supposed to believe? They could all be from the Revelation 17:5 ones?:wink:
But anyhow, my Authorized King James Bible has Genesis 1 at BC 4004.
Are you saying that you know better than these compilers?
---John
What educated 'arm of flesh' ones are we supposed to believe? They could all be from the Revelation 17:5 ones?:wink:
But anyhow, my Authorized King James Bible has Genesis 1 at BC 4004.
Are you saying that you know better than these compilers?
---John
K
KaerbEmEvig
Guest
I think Jews know their chronology better than some Christians (John of NT is 3 separate people, by the way) 60-80 years after Jesus...