6,007 Years – and we haven’t learnt anything

I think I may have stumbled upon the most wacko fundamentalist religious site on the net, or an amazingly clever parody. Unfortunately I think it’s the former.

Have a look at this picture, and then read the following text taken from the website:

seven_thou_years

The Seven Thousand Years of Human History

By my calculations, according to this we are at year 6007. Seven years into the “Rapture”, the “Second Coming” and rise of the “Antichrist”. Hmm, I seem to have missed all them.
Yes, I know this is dated 1918, but read what Tim Morton at Preserved Words has to say:

Greetings Brethren:

Although Clarence Larkin’s The Second Coming of Christ is over 85 years old, the material found in it has been little improved upon in the succeeding years. By the estimation of many Bible believers Larkin was the most insightful and well-equipped Bible student of his day, and even unto this present day. His books are filled with Bible truth and his charts are absolutely phenomenal.

We recently scanned this 71 page book with all its charts and woodcut images to make it freely available to all who seek knowledge of the Lord’s return. As far as we know it is the only version of this valuable work available.

emphasis mine

“his charts are absolutely phenomenal” – Absolutely phenomenally wrong!

I might download their Bible Analyzer software when I get a chance (damn dialup, damn Hel$tra) it could be good for a laugh. It may even provide a useful tool to combat the “that’s not what’s in the bible” brigade, or to find a certain verse.

Heads up to Tiny Frog, who also gives us some background on some of the other ‘Rapture’ maniacs.

Advertisements

13 Comments

Filed under atheism, atheist, beliefs, christianity, creationism, Rapture, religion

13 responses to “6,007 Years – and we haven’t learnt anything

  1. AV

    To put this into some perspective (that is, putting one primitive belief system next to another), the Mayans held that the current world–the “fourth world”–will end on December 20, 2012. The next day, a new creation will begin.

    To put this into another perspective (that is, placing one work of fiction next to another), read the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings.

  2. Thanks for that AV, I’ll mark that down in my diary. Perhaps I should hold off buying christmas presents that year?

    I downloaded the Bible Analyzer, it isn’t too bad a research tool, if you can get past the rhetoric, however the free download version is very limited. I’m considering buying the CD, it’s only $15, but I’m very reluctant to support this very radical fundamentalist group. What do people think?

  3. Jersey

    AV:

    Hmmm…according to Hindu mytholofy, we are in the fourth Yuga, the fourth age, the age where man is farthest from god, and the dharma.

    Cool.

  4. thegodguy

    Even God will challenge fundamentalist religious doctrine at the Second Coming. The secret of the Second Coming is that it takes place INSIDE us. What other great battle could there be than one that takes place in our hearts and minds? The Holy Word is a multi-dimensional document containing a quantum vocabulary where more expanded meanings are hidden in its narratives. The revelation in Revelation is a new dispensation from God. These deeper meanings are obscure to Christian orthodoxy which is the meaning behind the Lord “coming with the clouds” (unless one wants to believe that the Lord’s return will come on an overcast day).

    The God Guy
    http://www.thegodguy.wordpress.com

  5. Lord of the r\Rings is NOT fiction 🙂

  6. As far as I see the chart is right. If you want to spend the effort debating the idea you should read the parts of the bible that deal with this. Ezekiel, hosea, corinthians, titus, daniel, hebrews, mathew chap 24, Revelations etc. If you base your idea of of opinions only thats fine no prob but if you want to talk about soomething as fact or more than just a point of view you shuold study it try Lee strobles book case for Christ or researcH Simon Greenleaf previously of Harvard Law and his testing of the bible. I guess I get tired of Christians and none Christians basing “intelligent debate or conversation” off of opinions rather than true study and research.

    Also research young earth theory. This at least give you a research direction. P.s Rapture will not be found in the bible it was a word of another language as Luther translated the Catholic volgate the root word was something like rapeamore hence rapture to be caught up 1 corinthians 15:52

  7. So bohemian, do you seriously think we are into the seventh year of the Rapture and the Second Coming? I don’t have to study anything to know that this is not the case (I’m sure someone like the Pope would be at the front of the queue telling us loud and clear that Jesus had returned) – but that is what that chart is saying.

    Plus, I don’t believe the earth has been going for only 6,000 years, which makes the whole chart wrong. Quoting bible verse is no basis for argument, I know this is where the original ideas for the supposed 6,000 years comes from. I also don’t believe any of it to be true, there is too much scientific evidence to show otherwise.

    I have studied some young earth theory (or Young Earth Creation – YEC) and think it’s wrong. I have seen some good arguments for it but much better scientifically proven arguments against it. Thus I have had to conclude YEC is wrong. I’m happy for you to point me to further research on YEC if you think you can find anything that holds up scientifically.

    I never profess to know all, and am always happy to be directed to good research material. I agree that debating purely on opinions can lead to unfounded assertions, and always try and do some research before posting. If proven wrong I am happy to do further research and review my initial comments (see post on Colorado shooting). In fact, as I stated on someone’s blog the other day, I’ve done more research on Christianity/Religion in the last six months than in the three years when I was very religious.

    One last, but very important, thing I do not consider the Bible as fact, and as much as your or anyone else’s faith tries to convince me otherwise, I have not seen any evidence to convince me that it is. Therefore you can not use it as the basis for your argument otherwise you are falling into the same trap you dislike, that of basing a debate on opinion.

  8. Saved Sinner 2

    As far as I see the chart is right. If you want to spend the effort debating the idea you should read the parts of the bible that deal with this

    That is interesting that you see that the chart is right.

    f you base your idea of of opinions only thats fine no prob but if you want to talk about soomething as fact or more than just a point of view you shuold study it

    That is interesting that you see that the chart is right AND studied it, because if you study one of the resources that you had mentioned Mathew 24.

    quote from the Christians Bible
    “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.”
    (Matthew 24:36)
    “For as in the days before the flood,
    they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the
    Son of Man be. (Mat 24:38-39)

    I thought that would prove the chart to be wrong?

    as far as debating with opinions or researching other peoples opinions to support ones opinions… I don’t see the difference at least when it comes with the history of the Earth

    The honest truth is that we don’t know which view is correct as for the age of the earth, so in my OPINION both views are OPINIONS with/or with out research.
    Its not like we are trying to prove gravity… (give me an apple and I can prove that):)

    If we date the earth using Isochron dating that doesn’t necessarily mean that is true. one example would be (for any type of dating) say you have a ball that grows 2in dia a year and the ball is currently 10 in dia. well dating it would make it5 years old, but IF “God” created that ball 6 in dia from nothing then the ball would only be 2 years old. Well even if “God didn’t create the world” it is pure speculation that the ball grew 2in dia a year at the beginning no way to prove that the process was slower or faster in the years past only logical deduction.

    THE FLIP SIDE
    If (lets use the BIBLE’s God for this) we used the bible to date the Earth that doesn’t mean that it is a young earth either. First God doesn’t explain the length of 6 days (24h day, 1million year day, etc) the bibles intent wasn’t to be a science book that wasn’t Gods purpose for his word ( if it was he could have told Moses the secrets of the internet 🙂 ) Second, God in the Bible didn’t feel it was necessary for us to know the details of events prior to uttering the words “let there be light”.

    This is only my opinion though, I am in no way claiming to be an expert or even highly educated on the matter… I just like posting on this site 🙂

  9. AV

    TheGodGuy:

    quantum vocabulary

    What is a “quantum vocabulary?” Can you cite some examples of the words one is likely to find in a quantum vocabulary?

    Bohemian

    If you base your idea of of opinions only thats fine no prob but if you want to talk about soomething as fact

    . . . you should cite the empirical evidence that justifies your claim. Otherwise, there is no reason anyone who doesn’t already subscribe to your religious presupposition should take your claim seriously. Religious dogma (i.e. in the form of a holy book, which is religious dogma in print) does not count as good evidence for religious dogma; appealing to it is just an exercise in arguing in circles. Hope that helps.

    (On YEC: Talk Origins is always a good resource for debunking its claims.)

    SS2

    The honest truth is that we don’t know which view is correct as for the age of the earth, so in my OPINION both views are OPINIONS with/or with out research.
    Its not like we are trying to prove gravity… (give me an apple and I can prove that):)

    But how do you know that gravity is causing the apple to fall? Maybe every time you release an apple from your hand, the gods pull it to the earth. Ergo, gravity is just an OPINION. 🙂

    In all seriousness, the age of the earth, as estimated by the evil communist homosexualist god-hating atheist Darwinist scientific community of abortionist geologists that hate god, is not a matter of “opinion”–it is based on empirical data. Of course, it may turn out to be wrong, but if that is the case, it will be shown by the discovery of new evidence–not by appeal to religious dogma. There’s no reason to accept the notion that a claim about the age of the earth based on the doctrines of a particular religion carry the same weight as a determination based on empirical evidence.

  10. Saved Sinner 2

    But how do you know that gravity is causing the apple to fall? Maybe every time you release an apple from your hand, the gods pull it to the earth. Ergo, gravity is just an OPINION.

    Though humorous, gravity in itself still wouldn’t be an opinion, if the gods pulled it to the earth we still labeled it as gravity. I would agree by saying that defining the law of gravity:

    “Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a FORCE that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.” that the gods pull it to the earth would be OPINION of what that force was and how they routinely did it.

    There’s no reason to accept the notion that a claim about the age of the earth based on the doctrines of a particular religion carry the same weight as a determination based on empirical evidence.

    I agree that the use of doctrines of a particular religion for claiming about the age of the earth. Which I did state in my last post with the Christian’s Gods intent. God in any doctrine (at least as far as I know) weather Christianity, Judaism, Islamic or any other “Creator” dogma did not attempt to provide information/evidence/proof of the age of the earth. All religious doctrine was intended to tell the believer how to live and/or follow that particular god. Though, with in that doctrine you could based on observations of what is stated come to a hypothesis/theory/educated guess of the approximate age of the earth. One example in Christianity their bible has plenty of genealogical documentation so analyzing the birth, life span, and time period you could come to an educated conclusion of the age of the “Christian Earth”. I am not sure about the other religions, I am not completely familiar with their writings.

    scientifically speaking :Empirical evidence, Emperical method to draw a hypothesis,educated guess, theory, or what not utilizing tests is just a secular (no religious) experimentation of what is physically seen and available for the “scientific earth”.

    Though the processes are not based (for either) on “opinion” but the choice to agree with the conclusion is.

    Frankly, I don’t really care how old the earth is, or when/if it will become extinct.

    my 2 cents

  11. AV

    God in any doctrine (at least as far as I know) weather Christianity, Judaism, Islamic or any other “Creator” dogma did not attempt to provide information/evidence/proof of the age of the earth. All religious doctrine was intended to tell the believer how to live and/or follow that particular god.

    This is a pretty mainstream view among the many Christians, Jews and Muslims who accept science. The YECs disagree with you, though.

    scientifically speaking :Empirical evidence, Emperical method to draw a hypothesis,educated guess, theory, or what not utilizing tests is just a secular (no religious) experimentation of what is physically seen and available for the “scientific earth”.

    Though the processes are not based (for either) on “opinion” but the choice to agree with the conclusion is.

    I understand the distinction you are making between the “Christian Earth”–that is, if one were to adopt a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible–and the “scientific earth,” and I agree that one is always free to choose not to agree with the conclusions of geology. Where I draw the line is when attempts are made to force school science curricula to teach a falsehood: that the strict literalist Biblical account counts as science.

  12. ‘There is no gravity, the earth sucks!’ 😆

    SS2 and AV interesting debate, the 6 day literal creation was always a sticking point with me (during my religious years). When someone pointed out that the ‘days’ may not have been actual 24 hr days, as we know now them, and showed how that interpretation not only held up within the biblical text but was also acceptable to the wider Christian community (except the YECs) I was quite happy to accept that (at the time, my view is somewhat different these days). However, as AV points out, there is no scientific basis for any of this so it should NOT be taught as science within schools.

  13. Saved Sinner 2

    AV
    Where I draw the line is when attempts are made to force school science curricula to teach a falsehood: that the strict literalist Biblical account counts as science.

    Oz
    there is no scientific basis for any of this so it should NOT be taught as science within schools.

    Thats where I would draw the line as well, that is why religious doctrine is categorized under the school of Humanities (philosophy,psychology, etc) and by no means fit into the natural/physical sciences. Their is a distinct separation.

    ** Oh no maybe that is a sign that the end is coming soon, when 2 atheists and 1 theist start agreeing with each other ** 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s