Introducing the Hunter process.

Highjohn wrote:
PeterZ, There are people who take it literally. Six 24 hour days. 7000 or so years ago.

Agreed. There are people who take it literally--six 24-hour days. The most popular one has it at 6000 years ago.

Note: The 7000 years is from adding up generations

Plus a few other odds and sods.

I know of nowhere where an explicit date is mentioned.

James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, has it at about 6:00 p.m. Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 B.C. I guess that would be Lima time. Archbishop Ussher's chronology became the most popular one as it was added as a gloss in King James' bible.

~Tonto

Tonto Silerheels wrote:Highjohn wrote:
PeterZ, There are people who take it literally. Six 24 hour days. 7000 or so years ago.

Agreed. There are people who take it literally--six 24-hour days. The most popular one has it at 6000 years ago.

Note: The 7000 years is from adding up generations

Plus a few other odds and sods.

I know of nowhere where an explicit date is mentioned.

James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, has it at about 6:00 p.m. Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 B.C. I guess that would be Lima time. Archbishop Ussher's chronology became the most popular one as it was added as a gloss in King James' bible.

~Tonto

I hope that my using your wonderful post didn't upset you, Tonto. It seemed appropriate.

The 6,000 year old figure for how old the Earth is is actually several hundred years old itself, so updating it to 7,000 years old makes sense.

And Tonto, this may interest you, this is what Origen had to say on Genesis:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a Sun, and Moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? ... I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

As for what I was saying in my last post, my point was that the culture that I think Longhorne comes from doesn't really think about this sort of stuff

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

SCC wrote:The 6,000 year old figure for how old the Earth is is actually several hundred years old itself, so updating it to 7,000 years old makes sense.

And Tonto, this may interest you, this is what Origen had to say on Genesis:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a Sun, and Moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? ... I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

As for what I was saying in my last post, my point was that the culture that I think Longhorne comes from doesn't really think about this sort of stuff

Highjohn wrote:Finally. I don't need to find references to early civilization atheists. People learn beliefs. Your not born with them. So at some point someone had to 'learn' about the concept of god. Until then there wouldn't have been any theists.

Yes, I did expect you to find references to early civilization atheists, because that's what I asked you about. Quoting my earlier statement, with emphasis added:

Have you any evidence for this belief? Because all of the evidence that I have seen is that atheism is a fairly recent concept in human history, just as RFC says. The available evidence suggests that early civilizations had universal belief in gods, and that it goes back to prehistory.

Yes, there are a few roots of atheism that can (with some stretching) be traced back a couple thousand years. But that is relatively recent compared to the ten thousand years of recorded history, and the hundred thousand years of pre-history before that. The origins of religion appear to go back to the Neolithic or possibly the Paleolithic eras. If you want to argue that early stone-age man was an atheist, I guess you can. But I'm not sure those early humans really had sufficient reasoning power to have any philosophy.

What's "interesting" to me about his "findings" of ancient atheists is the one he left out.

The Romans called the early Christians atheists because they had rejected the "gods of the State".

I doubt that the early Christians would met his definition of atheists.

SWM wrote:

Highjohn wrote:Finally. I don't need to find references to early civilization atheists. People learn beliefs. Your not born with them. So at some point someone had to 'learn' about the concept of god. Until then there wouldn't have been any theists.

Yes, I did expect you to find references to early civilization atheists, because that's what I asked you about. Quoting my earlier statement, with emphasis added:

Have you any evidence for this belief? Because all of the evidence that I have seen is that atheism is a fairly recent concept in human history, just as RFC says. The available evidence suggests that early civilizations had universal belief in gods, and that it goes back to prehistory.

Yes, there are a few roots of atheism that can (with some stretching) be traced back a couple thousand years. But that is relatively recent compared to the ten thousand years of recorded history, and the hundred thousand years of pre-history before that. The origins of religion appear to go back to the Neolithic or possibly the Paleolithic eras. If you want to argue that early stone-age man was an atheist, I guess you can. But I'm not sure those early humans really had sufficient reasoning power to have any philosophy.

PeterZ wrote:
I hope that my using your wonderful post didn't upset you, Tonto. It seemed appropriate.

On the contrary, I was quite flattered. Thank you for your concern.

~Tonto

SCC wrote:
The 6,000 year old figure for how old the Earth is is actually several hundred years old itself, so updating it to 7,000 years old makes sense.

I don't think that's accurate. As I noted in my post, Ussher had it in October 4004 B.C. The time from October 4004 B.C. to December 1 B.C. is about 4003 1/6th years. The time from Jan 1 A.D. to Feb 2014 A.D. is about 2014 1/6th years. Not accounting for the roughly two weeks lost switching from the Gregorian to the Julian, and numerous other anomalies, that's 6017 2/3rds years, which is much closer to 6000 years than it is 7000. Ussher published in the 17th century. Halafta had it at 3751 B.C. Bede had it at 3952 B.C. Scaliger had it at 3949. Kepler had it at 3992 B.C. Newton had it at roughly 4000 B.C. Lightfoot had it at 3929 B.C. So, we're basically talking about 6000 years.

And Tonto, this may interest you, this is what Origen had to say on Genesis: <snippage>

Thank you for the quotation. I was aware that Origen believed in "long" creation days, but I had never seen the actual words he used. Early Jewish scholars who believed in long creation days included Josephus and Philo. Early Christian Fathers who did, in addition to Origen, include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose.

As for what I was saying in my last post, my point was that the culture that I think Longhorne comes from doesn't really think about this sort of stuff

Agreed. I try to put myself into Langhorn's slippers. Here I am (assuming I'm a Christian) and I want to create a religion that will forestall scientific advancement. I would be very much tempted to create one with the Judeo-Christian God because I want people to have eternal reward in the afterlife. I put a lot of the bible into it because I really believe it was inspired by God, so people are going to study it and see the wisdom. But, due to necessity, I have to put some other stuff into it to halt that advancement I mentioned earlier. Now, if it were me, then I would have a very, very hard time putting that other stuff in, because I believe it violates the third commandment. (Or second, depending upon how you count.) However, I've already said elsewhere I hold a minority opinion on that one. So, suppose Langhorn holds the majority opinion. He can add whatever he wants, and Lord knows a lot of Christians wrote a lot of fiction and presented it as fact in order to get their pet beliefs incorporated into the body of scripture. So let's say Langhorn is one of those. Here's where I hit a sticking point. I cannot present myself as an Archangel. That would just be...beyond the pale. So, my conclusion is that either Langhorn wasn't a Christian, or...being worshiped as an Archangel wasn't a means to an end, but was an end per se.

I think I recall that Nimue Alban is a Christian, but I don't recall any text evidence contradicting my conclusion.

~Tonto

phillies wrote:Readers who think Langhorne should have tried something different should write those novels. There were lots of approaches, very limited resources to put them into effect ... The Writ had to be written in a few decades by a fairly small group of people, and think of everything needed technically...so Langhorne and company hit on one obvious way to go.

Note that it took this group a half-dozen books to ask why he tried the Writ rather than something else.

Readers interested in alternative language styles should read Coe on the Mayan decipherment first.

And to make this thread happier, I am profoundly happy for the good news on Sharon. I hope she continues to recover rapidly.

With respect to 'write those novels', lest I be accused of telling other people to do that which I would not do myself, well, 'Mistress of the Waves' on Kindle is an almost totally different trap, carefully designed by people who knew they were doing good work. You need not fear innovation if it is always for the worse.

It's long but it is pretty interesting.

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham (YouTube)

SCC wrote:The 6,000 year old figure for how old the Earth is is actually several hundred years old itself, so updating it to 7,000 years old makes sense.

And Tonto, this may interest you, this is what Origen had to say on Genesis:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a Sun, and Moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? ... I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

As for what I was saying in my last post, my point was that the culture that I think Longhorne comes from doesn't really think about this sort of stuff