Discussion 15 to to Meditation 20
"Confusing" isn't the correct word
by: JT
To give your own opinion on this exchange of views, please sign in to the discussion forum below, or alternatively, use the contact page to provide your comments for publication. The discussion has been continued.
I have two more messages from Graham Kent and, based on the previous ones, I see no point in publishing them here.
What Ussher had going for him was an assumption that the Bible was error-free literal truth, and that he could tie at least some events in the Bible to known historical events, and thus he was able to link the relative dating from the Bible to a real historical timeline.
Assumption: The Bible is error-free literal truth
Conclusion: The date of creation was 4004 BC
Of course, if we assume science gives us a reasonable approximation of when it all started, (13.8 Billion years ago), then not only is Ussher's conclusion wrong, but his initial assumption was also wrong.
What Graham Kent seems to be doing is
- assuming multiple mythologies, including the Bible are all true,
- tying together dates in those mythologies,
- providing links to some of the most crackpot ideas I've looked at, and
- trying to say these all indicate a date of creation about 12,000 years ago.
Along the way, there seems to be no grounding in reality. It's just number games.
And the science still points to approximately 13.8 Billion years ago.
I find the science makes much more sense. I can follow the logic there.
The discussion on Meditation 20 remains open to those that want to take on the issues, but - I do think we've had enough from Graham Kent on the matter.
Please take a moment to share your thoughts, pro and con, on this discussion.
comments powered by Disqus