Thread 17826084

Adam (130 years) + Seth (105) + Enos (90) + Cainan (70) + Mahalaleel (65) + Jared (162) + Enoch (65) + Methuselah (187) + Lamech (182) = 1,056 years from creation until Noah's birth.
Noah was 600 when the flood started.
Two years after the flood, Arphaxad was born: Shem (2) + Arphaxad (35) + Salah (30) + Eber (34) + Peleg (30) + Reu (32) + Serug (30) + Nahor (29) = 222 years.
Nahor begat Terah, who begat Abraham. Terah died at 205 at which time Abraham was 75 => Terah begat Abram after 130 years.
Abraham (100) + Isaac (60) = 160
Jacob was 130 years old when the children of Israel began to sojourn in the land of Egypt.
Israelites left Egypt after 430 years to the day.
The temple was constructed 480 years later.
At this time, Solomon had already reigned 4 years. He reigned for 40 years total. Using reigns of kings instead of births we can see:
Solomon (40 - 4) + Rehoboam (17) + Abijah (3) + Asa (41) + Jehoshaphat (25) + Jehoram (8) + Ahaziah (1) + Athaliah (7) + Joash (40) + Amaziah (29) + Uzziah (52) + Jotham (16) + Ahaz (16) + Hezekiah (29) + Manasseh (55) + Amon (2) + Josiah (31) + Jehoahaz (3 months) + Jehoiakim (11) + Jehoiachin (3 months) = 419.5 years
Beginning of Babylonian captivity to King Cyrus' Reign = 70 years.
This is where modern history picks up, so we know that Cyrus began reigning in 536 BC.
That was a lot of work, but now the rest is easy:
536 + 70 + 419.5 + 480 + 430 + 130 + 160 + 130 + 222 + 600 + 1056 = 4233.5. Rounding up, we can say that the earth was created in the year 4234 BC. This could be off by a couple of years, since the reigns and the births given aren't calculated to the day, and there is some dispute about the exact year King Cyrus began to reign. However, these differences couldn't account for more than a decade or two.
It's currently 2025, which means that the earth is:

6,259 years old.

Oh, and the King James Bible is God's perfect word in English. QED.

Christ is King

>>17826084 (OP)
why do funny walking fish make the resident baptist schizo seethe so much

>>17826084 (OP)
Spammers have a new tactic: pretend to be retarded Christians so atheists can come and refute the thread, but it's a shame that the way you communicate is so similar. In fact, young earth wasn't even a thing until retarded Americanism became a model of Christianity.

>>17826090
Of the Jews! :)

>>17826111
Your pattern recognition is trash. There's nothing to refute, unless you want to cite chapter and verse telling me what I got wrong.

>>17826084 (OP)
Why would Adam and Eve have to eat from the Tree of life to be granted immortality if death did not reign before Adam?
After all, evil and darkness already existed before light.
>And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep
the angels already fell and Satan was already in the garden with them.
>And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
>And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

>>17826123
Your threads are terrible.
You can't even disguise it by paraphrasing this specious shit

>>17826138
Meds. Now.

>>17826142
>specious
Nope, it is all backed 100% by the Bible. Have fun burning.

>>17826143
>And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
There was never any implication in Genesis that Adam and Eve were immortal while in the Garden. They were always able to die.

>>17826151
Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:12

>>17826231
Genesis 2:17
>You'll die if you eat from this tree
is somehow the same as
>You guys are immortal right now, but you'll lose it if you eat from that tree

Romans 5:12
two verses later in 5:14 it says
>Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses
But death reigned a lot longer after Moses too, why couldn't it reign before adam?

>>17826249
Give it a rest, loser. You are just trying to come up with a cute private reading of the Bible. It is incredibly transparent to everyone.

>>17826253
>a cute private reading of the Bible
I'm sorry i thought this was a protestant thread where everyone's interpretation of the bible is infallible?

>>17826255
>P-P-PROTESTANTS!!!!
There it is. Enjoy Hell.

>>17826257
you've yet to actually refute anything i've said. Your only responses have been
>Meds now
>give it a rest
>enjoy hell
how are you worth the air that you breathe?

>>17826258
>how are you worth the air that you breathe?
By my redemption through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Tick tock.

>>17826255
That's just what Protestants believed in your head

>>17826084 (OP)
>This is what atheist actually believe
There are fish the crawl over dry land today. There are fish today that have lungs.

>>17826084 (OP)
>>17826102
>>17826284
Yea. Languish and mudskippers exist right now. Its not something to believe. The meme makes no sense.

>>17826289
Lungfish*

>>17826111
Not true. Virtually every theologian before the 19th century believed in young earth creationism and many denominations with apostolic succession like Oriental Orthodox still do

>>17826291
It's a Catholic. You expect it to be educated?

>>17826296
>IFB
>in a YEC thread
>calls Catholics uneducated
The lord said there would be signs of the end...

>>17826310
He's right though

>>17826249
Talk about twisting scripture. This is a transparent desperate attempt to pry scripture open with a crowbar to cram a pagan mythology into it.

This retard doesn't even know about atomic half-lifes.
The earth is directly observed to be billions of years old.

>>17826319
>The earth is directly observed to be billions of years old.
And yet, no one on earth is even close to 200 years old. Weird!

>>17826320
You can directly observe something that's older than you.

>>17826322
You can't observe age

>>17826330
That's the beauty of half lifes. You can use them to observe age.

>>17826340
The beauty of God's word is that it is without error. That's how we can calculate the age of the earth. (6,259 years).

>>17826120
True...but enjoy hell anyway dickhole

>>17826340
No, you're observing half lives. Age is not a physical property

>35 replies
>not a single biblical criticism of the calculation
I win!

>>17826428
That's because you're right

>>17826431
:)

>>17826257
>>17826268
Stop condemning people. I know you're not saved because the holy spirit would be convicting you.

>>17826084 (OP)
This is what they handed out at Christmas midnight Traditional Latin Mass. You do the maths.

Honestly, yeah, you make a good point. A snake telling a woman to eat and apple and fuck is pretty stupid, but a fish growing legs and becoming a monkey is also pretty stupid. The idea that the world will end in fire and the idea that the universe started with a big bang in the middle of nothing aren’t any different at all if you think about it.

It’s like the ancient Egyptians mocking the Greeks.

>>17826284
Call me when they turn into monkeys

>>17826084 (OP)
A few differences from the Biblical timeline.

Firstly, you can go further back than 536 BC to make the point of contact to the secular calendar. See the following two points on that.

-- Jehoiachin/Jeconiah reigned after Jehoiakim for a period of 3 months and 10 days, i.e. from day 1 month 10 (according to the biblical months) of that year until day 10 month 1 of the next year (2 Chr. 36:9, Ezek. 40:1). Jehoiachin's surrender and end of reign was in March/April 597 BC. This is because the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Ki. 24:12) was seven years after the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and his first year is well-known to be the regnal year beginning after the death of Nabopolassar in August 605 BC (soon after the battle of Carchemish). Nebuchadnezzar's first year started on either month 7 (mid-September) 605 BC or month 1 (mid-March) 604 BC. In either case, day 10 month 1 of the eighth year falls in March/April, 597 BC.

-- The 1st year of Zedekiah started either in month 7 (September), 597 BC, or month 1 (March), 596 BC. He was taken captive in day 9 of month 4 in the 11th year of his reign (June/July 586 BC) and the temple was burned down during days 7-10 of month 5 in the same year (July/August). These dates are the same regardless of calendar; Zedekiah's actual reign length was 11 years, plus a remainder of of 3/9 months, minus one day; see: 2 Ki. 25:3-4, Jer. 39:2, Jer. 52:6-7; also 2 Ki. 25:8 and Jer. 52:12.

So, we can tie the end of Jehoiakim's reign to December of 597 BC. Then work back from there.

Fortunately, regnal years are always counted in such a way that you can easily add the reign lengths and the remainders don't overflow. The "first year" of a king doesn't begin until the start of the next new year, as the year when the former king died is counted as one of his years. Helpfully, the sum of years during the divided kingdom is confirmed by Ezekiel 4:5, which tells us how many years passed since Jeroboam set up the two calves. (1/8)

>>17827025
Having said the above, it also has to be pointed out that you seem to have confused two different periods of 70 years mentioned by the Bible. The 70 years of servitude (606 - 536 BC) are not to be confused with the 70 years of desolations (586 - 516 BC).

It is easier to illustrate this with a chart. The years of servitude began when the first Judahites were taken captive in 606 BC. The city had not been destroyed by this point, and it wouldn't be until 586 BC that the city and temple were sacked by the Babylonians.

A second wave of captives was taken by Babylon in 597 BC, which is when Jehoiachin surrendered. The "years of captivity" mentioned by Ezekiel begin here. This is yet another separate count from either of the other 70 year periods.

A third large wave of Judahite captives were taken at the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. You will notice that it was 70 years between this date (destruction of the temple of Solomon) and the completion of the second temple in 516 BC (Ezra 6:15). This is not to be confused with the initial foundation of the second temple, which Daniel lived to see. This is because it took many years to build the second temple. The time between the destruction of the original temple and the completion of the second temple (despite all of the delays and so forth that were forced on it) happens to be exactly 70 years. This is the "seventy years of desolations" mentioned in Daniel 9:2. The "seventy years of captivity" began twenty years earlier in 606 BC (when Daniel was taken captive in the first wave) until 536 BC when Cyrus allowed them to return.

Because of this, your timeline ended up being 9 years longer (would be 20 years, but you didn't add Zedekiah's reign). IOW, if you were connecting to the end of Jehoiachin's reign, it would really be 61 years to Cyrus's first year. (Cont'd).

>>17827031
So, I would say that the Bible places the death of Jehoiakim in December 598 BC and have explained the reason for this above. Going backward from there, Jehoiakim is allotted 11 years, Jehoahaz is allotted 1 or 0 years (his reign may or may not have crossed a year boundary due to how short it was), and the rest of the reigns are the same with two exceptions.

The first exception is the reign length of Jehoram. This was actually four years. Comparing 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 8:16, and 2 Kings 9:29 with 2 Kings 8:25, shows that Jehoram (of the southern kingdom) co-ruled with his father for four years, likely due to his father's poor health. If you count Jehoram as an eight year reign, his first four years are also allotted to the last four years of Jehoshaphat, meaning he only had four years of sole reign. Thus, my chronology is four years shorter in this place, and 13-14 years shorter overall so far (w/ one year uncertainty due to Jehoahaz and whether he is allotted a year or not). Cont'd.

>>17827034
Also, according to 2 Kings 11:3-4, Athaliah reigned six years, and "in the seventh year" was when Jehoash was restored. If you are in the seventh year, then you have reigned six years and some number of months.

You haven't reigned a full seven years until the seventh year is over. Also, this is the 250th year of the United States' existence, but it won't be 250 years old until the 250th year is completed. It has existed for 249 years and some number of months and days and is in its 250th year. Likewise if you are in your first year of life, that means you haven't lived a full year yet.

Therefore, Athaliah's reign really lasted six years "and change." When you add in the one year allotted to Ahaziah (his reign only crossed one "new year" threshold) and the fact that Jehoash began to reign in Jehu's seventh year, you get a total of 7 years for Ahaziah and Athaliah together, plus the remainder of the seventh year before Jehoash's first new year as king, when his first official regnal year began. Therefore my timeline is one more year shorter than yours, and 14-15 years shorter overall.

I would place the beginning of Rehoboam's reign in 975 or 976 BC. When you count forward Rehoboam (17) + Abijah (3) + Asa (41) + Jehoshaphat (25) + Jehoram (4) + Ahaziah (1) + Athaliah (6) + Jehoash (40) + Amaziah (29) + Uzziah/Azariah (52) + Jotham (16) + Ahaz (16) + Hezekiah (29) + Manasseh (55) + Amon (2) + Josiah (31) + Jehoahaz (0 or 1) + Jehoiakim (11) = 597 BC.

The above calculation is confirmed by Ezekiel 4:5, which states that there were 390 years between that time (possibly the time he finishes lying on his side, which is 390 days or >1 year later) and when Jeroboam first made Israel to sin by setting up the golden calves c. 975 BC. Note that Solomon's temple was destroyed ~11 years after Jehoiakim's death c. 597 BC. The accuracy of this independent verification (from Ezekiel 4:5) is to within ±1 year of my earlier calculation. Cont'd.

>>17827035
So we have Rehoboam's first year beginning in 976 or 975 BC according to my chronology.

Note that this chronology is also very disjointed from most secular chronologies, ever since the Assyrian king list was discovered. This is because the Assyrians apparently erased (or tried to erase) approximately 45 years' worth of kings from their history. Modern biblical chronologists (like Edwin Thiele's famous chronology) try to account for this by erasing 45 years of history. Because of this, they are forced to make many of the divided kingdom's reigns overlap (but without Biblical justification for most of these overlaps) in order to fit everything into this vastly shorter timeline. But their shortened chronology fails from the point of view of Ezekiel 4:5, which demands 390 years between his time and the beginning of the divided kingdom.

Curiously, these 45 "missing years" (825 to 781 BC) also seem to align pretty closely to when Jonah went to Nineveh according to the Bible. Jonah was around circa 825 BC during the reign of Jeroboam II of the northern kingdom (see 2 Kings 14:25). It is possible that later Ninevites tried to "erase" this part of their history by removing a bunch of years from their king list.

Because of this, modern chronologies tend to be very messed up and confused before 781 BC. This source of error is for the simple reason that the modern secular chronologies always choose to prioritize Assyrian king list more than the Biblical account. (Cont'd.)

>>17827037
According to 2 Chronicles 3:2, the temple began to be built in day 2 of month 2 in his fourth year. The time between that day and the end of his reign had to be 36 years and some number of months. Thus, day 2 of month 2 in Solomon's fourth year must have been in 1012 or 1011 BC.

According to 1 Kings 6:1, the time from when Israel arrived in Canaan until day 2 month 2 in the 4th year of Solomon's reign was 479 years, 1 month, minus 13 days (1 Ki. 6:1, 2 Chr. 3:2, see Deut. 4:45-46). Notice that it says, in the 480th year, meaning it was not a full 480 years but rather 479 years and some number of months. Since the passover is on day 14 of month 1, we are able to know the exact remainder of months and days. The time from day 15 of month 1 (when Passover begins, which was celebrated after they entered Canaan) to day 2 of month 2 is 1 month minus 13 days. Therefore, we can place the entry into Canaan in approximately the year 1490 to 1493 BC. (Added two additional years of uncertainty due to possible shifts in the regnal calendar convention at two places).

Note here that the 40 years in the wilderness is counted separately. 1 Kings 6:1 says that the starting point of the 479 years is when they "were come out of the land of Egypt." This is the same language used in Deuteronomy 4:45. This also makes sense in modern English. The time I come home from the gym is not the same as the time that I left the gym. Theoretically, if it took me 40 years to travel from the gym to home, then the time I came home from the gym is 40 years later than the time I actually left the gym.

Since you did not count these 40 years, my timeline is 40 years longer here. Because of this 40 year difference, my chronology is now 23-26 years longer overall. This also accords better with what it says in Acts 13:20, where Paul says that the time of the judges lasted "about 450 years" (actually ~432.5 years by my count, which barely fits, but it rounds up to 450 rather than 400). Cont'd.

>>17827039
The time from the exodus from Egypt until Israel arrived in Canaan was exactly 40 years later (Ex. 12:41, Gal. 3:17, Gen. 46:2-4; Deut. 4:45-46; Ex. 12:40, Deut. 1:3, Josh. 4:19, Josh. 5:11). So the Exodus (Exodus 12:40) is dated to 1530 to 1533 BC. This would place it in the very early part of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and near the end of the Seventeenth dynasty. If we move back 430 years from here, according to the long sojourn timeline (many strong reasons to accept this over the "shorter" timeline, such as what is given by the Septuagint version), the entry of Israel into Egypt occurred around 1960 to 1963 BC, when Jacob was 130 years old.

Unfortunately, the ages of the patriarchs don't work the same as regnal years. So we have to add 1 year of uncertainty for every generation going back from this point. Jacob was born when Isaac was 60 years old according to Genesis 25:26, but Isaac's exact age at this point could be anywhere from his 60th birthday to the day before his 61st birthday. So Jacob was born 2090-2094, and Isaac was born in 2150-2155 BC.

Technically the next point in the timeline isn't Abram's birth, but when he was 75 years old since that is when Terah died at age 205. Abram's age at this point could be anywhere from his 75th birthday to the day before 76th birthday. But his age at Isaac's birth could be anywhere from 100th birthday to the day before turning 101. So we have to add two years of uncertainty here.

To be exact, one needs to account for the longest and shortest possible time between each two events. The total time from Abram being 75 years to him being 100 could have been anywhere from 24 years and one day to one day short of 26 years. So working this out carefully, we add 24 years to the minimum and two years of uncertainty: On the day that Terah died at age 205, Abram was age 75, and this day had to be somewhere in the timeframe 2174 - 2181 BC. Cont'd.

>>17827040
Going back from there is simple, but uncertainty grows with each generation by one year. One adds the year number to the "shortest" timeline and add one extra year (rather, one year minus one day if you want to get really specific) to the longest possible timeline. 2174 + 205 gives the timeframe 2379 - 2387 BC for Terah's birthday.

Adding 220 years (minimum) for the seven generations before Terah results in the timeframe 2599 - 2614 BC for the birth of Arphaxad. He was said to be born two years "after the flood," which could really be pointed to anywhere from the time the rain stopped until the time when they got off the ark. According to Genesis 7:17, 8:14, 11:10, this point in time ("after the flood" i.e. two years before Arphaxad was born) could be anywhere from 40 days to 1 year and 10 days after the day that the flood began. Thus the "beginning" of the flood must be between 2601 and 2618 BC. We have to add one year of uncertainty for going two years back (it could have been two years and X months) to "after the flood" and another year of uncertainty to go to the "beginning" of the flood.

A fun fact is that the year 2601 to 2618 BC would be close to the end of the Second dynasty of Egypt and the beginning of the Third dynasty.

The oldest standing structure is the pyramid of Djoser, who was the founder of the Third dynasty and his pyramid could have been built around 2611 BC. This would barely fit in with the biblical timeline. Ruins of earlier dynasties before Djoser do exist, but interestingly they are all buried underground and needed to be excavated.

Before 2601 - 2618 BC, there were 1656 more years of patriarchs. with nine more generations. So the day of Adam's creation on the sixth day of creation is 4257 - 4283 BC.

>>17827025
>So, we can tie the end of Jehoiakim's reign to December of 597 BC
Mistyped here. It should be 598 BC. Which is right before the start of 597 according to the secular calendar.

>>17826084 (OP)
And God cursed the watchers to hell for 70 generations before judging them. 1 generation being 100 years there was 7000 years till judgement day when they were cast down.

>>17826472
>Stop condemning people. I know you're not saved because the holy spirit would be convicting you.
They condemn themselves. I am saved and going to Heaven when I die. I will reign with Christ and live forever in the New Earth. Does that bother you? :)
>>17826484
>Catholic pamphlet
>Doesn't line up with the Bible
Color me shocked.
>>17826500
Have fun burning.
>>17827025
>Fortunately, regnal years are always counted in such a way that you can easily add the reign lengths and the remainders don't overflow. The "first year" of a king doesn't begin until the start of the next new year, as the year when the former king died is counted as one of his years.
Okay.
>Helpfully, the sum of years during the divided kingdom is confirmed by Ezekiel 4:5, which tells us how many years passed since Jeroboam set up the two calves.
Correct.
>>17827031
>A second wave of captives was taken by Babylon in 597 BC, which is when Jehoiachin surrendered. The "years of captivity" mentioned by Ezekiel begin here. This is yet another separate count from either of the other 70 year periods.
I'm skeptical, but you might be right. I will have to look into this when I have more time. Thanks for the contribution.
>>17827039
>Note here that the 40 years in the wilderness is counted separately. 1 Kings 6:1 says that the starting point of the 479 years is when they "were come out of the land of Egypt." This is the same language used in Deuteronomy 4:45. This also makes sense in modern English. The time I come home from the gym is not the same as the time that I left the gym. Theoretically, if it took me 40 years to travel from the gym to home, then the time I came home from the gym is 40 years later than the time I actually left the gym.
No, that's retarded. They "were come out of the land" when they left, 430 years after they entered. Canaan isn't Egypt.
>>17827040
>>17827041
Yes like I said there are some years of uncertainty with this calculation. You didn't need to sperg.

>>17828380
>No, that's retarded. They "were come out of the land" when they left, 430 years after they entered. Canaan isn't Egypt.
See the following:

"And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel:
These are the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which Moses spake unto the children of Israel, after they came forth out of Egypt,
On this side Jordan, in the valley over against Bethpeor, in the land of Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt at Heshbon, whom Moses and the children of Israel smote, after they were come forth out of Egypt:
And they possessed his land, and the land of Og king of Bashan, two kings of the Amorites, which were on this side Jordan toward the sunrising;
From Aroer, which is by the bank of the river Arnon, even unto mount Sion, which is Hermon,
And all the plain on this side Jordan eastward, even unto the sea of the plain, under the springs of Pisgah."
- Deuteronomy 4:44-49

Based. Christ is King.

>>17826344
>>17826355
>NOOO YOU CAN'T USE HALF-LIFE TO OBSERVE AGE BECAUSE... YOU JUST CAN'T OKAY????

>>17826355
You don't know what this dating method is and how it works. Half lives ARE the age.

>>17826505
That's not what evolution says. Are you actually stupid and think this is what evolution is or are you lying?

>>17829427
Oh yes, also, Acts 13:20.

Christians believe we live on a floating dome and you can physically fly up to heaven

>>17830614
>muh walking fish
DESIGNED BY GOD

>>17830628
Nope. Evolution is a fact of reality.

>>17830633
Fishes don't magically walk on land

>>17826084 (OP)
>Oh, and the King James Bible is God's perfect word in English. QED.
so the entire premise is wrong, gotcha

>>17830760
This >>17830614 isn't magic. Evolution isn't magic. Fish evolving a double jointed fin via a mutation that let's it pull itself on land as a rudimentary form of crawling isn't magic. Mutations accumulating over time isnt magic. Mutations accumulating to turn a population of fish into a population of tetrapod salamander things isn't magic.

>>17829427
>>17830579
You're dumb. :/
>>17830633
>Evolution is a fact of reality.
Things that are mathematically impossible aren't facts of reality. Tick tock.

>>17830614
>It's real.
Wow. Okay, you win this one. I won't use that image again. You're still going to burn, don't worry. Have fun!

>>17830987
Are you OP? I guess you think Paul was wrong then in Acts 13:20, anon.

>>17831000
>>17831000
>I guess you think Paul was wrong then in Acts 13:20, anon.
No, I think you can't read. "About 450" does not equal 450. I learned this in like 1st grade math. Which "school" did you go to?

>>17831005
>"About 450" does not equal 450.
You're saying it's less than 400.

>>17830987
>Things that are mathematically impossible aren't facts of reality
Evolution isn't mathematically impossible.

>>17831007
Goodbye.

>>17831012
See >>17828551

>>17831014
Troll

>>17831018
You were refuted several months ago
Christians literally can't reason.

>>17831022
I'm pretty sure this is just some guy pretending to be the OP.

>>17830579
Just in case OP reads this:

If there are 480 years between when the Exodus happened and Solomon's 4th year, that implies there are only 436 years between the Exodus and David becoming king, since his reign was 40 years long.

If this 436 years includes the entire 40 years in the wilderness, there are only 396 years for judges as Samuel is the last one. The time period for judges can't include the 40 years of wandering, since Paul counts those years separately in Acts 13:18, and says "after this" there was about 450 years of judges.

According to 1 Samuel 25:1 and 27:7, Samuel died at least 1 year and 4 months before David became king. So there are really only 395 years at most for this if you count Joshua as a judge. If Paul said 395 years, or less, was "about 450," that would make his statement false and misleading. Whatever the real number is, Paul would round it to 400 in that case, rather than 450. Sorry if you don't like it.

But the Bible is true in Acts 13:18-20, just as it is in 1 Kings 6:1 and elsewhere. I don't believe they contradict.

>>17831078
You're trying to use a less clear verse to debunk a crystal clear verse. 480 years after they came out of Egypt, Solomon started building the temple. You could say there were judges in the wilderness - In fact, there were judges in the wilderness:
Exodus 18:21-24
>Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
>And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
>If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.
>So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said.
The more plain reading is to say that Paul is simply conflating the two periods, which is why he chooses the word "about". Pro tip: Always use the clearer teaching to interpret the less clear teaching.

>>17831099
>You're trying to use a less clear verse to debunk a crystal clear verse.
No, they are both true. Please stop trolling if you aren't OP.

>>17831099
>The more plain reading is to say that Paul is simply conflating the two periods,
See the following:

"And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness.
And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot.
And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet."
(Acts 13:18-20)

At the beginning of verse 20, he said, "And after that". He described the 40 years in the wilderness and the allottment of Canaan to Israel, then he said "And after that he gave unto them judges".

You're saying "after that" doesn't mean "after that." I fully believe Scripture. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα in Acts 13:20 means "And after that," which is what the translation says, and not "during the same time."

And there is no world where 395 (or less) rounds up to 450. It would never do this no matter what. It rounds to 400.

>>17831121
Oh yeah by the way this means both Acts 13:18-20 and 1 Kings 6:1 are true, just like this post >>17831100 said.

It's because the 40 years happened before the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1. Deuteronomy 4:45-46. The phrase "After they came forth out of Egypt" is clearly referring to the end of the 40 years of wandering there.

>>17831100
Thank you for admitting you are trolling.

>>17830633
Then why do scientists still call it a theory?

>>17826090
>>17826120
Jesus was king of the Jews because Glaphyra adopted him from Juba II,- the Herods' Nemesis. Glaphyra was the widow of the Hasmonean heir, which the Herods had killed before taking Glaphyra hostage. The Hasmonean lineage was founded mainly due to support of the Saduccees and Essenes, because it was a priest-king dynasty. The Pharisers however, was very ANAL about the Davidic line being the only ones allowed to take the kingly role within Israel. Glaphyra became relieved when she realized that Juba II was an anthropologist, explorer and historian that due to interest in his own Massylii origin figured out that it could only have been the "Messiah" lineage from Davids firstborn son with Michal,- daughter of Saul. Before this lineage was adopted by the Gaetulian Berbers (namesake origin for the tribe of Gad btw), the berbers never had any tradition of royalty. Dido also known as "Elissa" was the daughter of the prophet Elisha. She fled to become a royal of Carthage because of the rumor that Davids senior lineage lived around there.
That is the real story behind Hebrew Dido, Luwian Aeneas and Gaetulian Iarbas. Dido likely saw Iarbas as the heir of David (which he likely was) and thus a way for her to put legitimacy behind her father Elisha as well as redeeming Davids banished lineage. But as we all know, Dido fell in love with Aeneas and never married Iarbas,- leaving the Massylii/Masaesulian tribes separated from their Hebrew heritage until Iarbas' descendant MASSINISSA switched sides yo help Rome defeat Carthage. Due to this, the Pharisees at Alexandria decided to canonize the Massylii as the archetypal "Savior" of the Davidic lineage by turning Massinissa's actions into an archetype of hope for the Jews. Massinissa lived just a few decades before the Jews of Alexandria had to write down the Jewish canon on decree for the Library of Alexandria.

>>17833203
Juba II adopted Jesus to Glaphyra in order to restore the ESSENE-backed Hasmoneans. This made the Herods piss their pants because their Pharisee priesthood had already canonized the "Messiah" as the proper Pharisee wish for king. Thus did Jesus' Massylii heritage justify his claims through lineage to David, previous wishes of the Pharisees as well as the Essene-lenient current wishes of Glaphyra to restore the Hasmoneans. There was literally 0 scriptural or traditional reason for the Herods and Pharisees to oppose Jesus other than a nepotistic grab to power. One one hand the Judeans had toppled the Hasmoneans for being too anti-roman, and on the other they maintained a limbo of defiant alliance with the Romans. Jesus as the younger son of Juba II, adoptee of Glaphyra and the literal "Messiah" in the most literal of senses mean that the Pharisees had to ignore their own history and wishes in order to justify their rejection of Jesus. They simply viewed Jesus as a Roman mole and bastard despite him method-acting through their entire scripture just to prove that he knew what he talked about and that he gave a shit about his heritage. But nah, the pharisees were chronic nay-sayers that simply could not accept that history was NOW, as opposed to some carrot-on-a-stick political tool.

>>17826084 (OP)
Dumbfuck image

>>17826084 (OP)
>coincidence detector puts echoes around Solomon
kek

>>17832795
Enjoy Hell.

>>17826428
Islam is the real truth. Refute using the Quran.

>>17833605
All Christianity is is threats of some non-existent pit of magical lava. There is no proof, no evidence, no scientific findings that support it. Best you can do is dig up egregiously corrupted manuscripts from Rome that was fucked with by Christian scribes for hundreds of years. Worst you can do is claim that the one apocalypse prophet of the hundreds existing at the time in Judea actually existed and actually did miracles even though we have no record of it anywhere.

>>17833605
Enjoy seething.

>>17834050
>no scientific findings that support it
Modern science teaches that the center of the earth is burning hot. Enjoy.

>>17834294
It's actually starting to cool down.

>>17826084 (OP)
Even this caricature of evolution is more believable than any of the abrahamic religions.

>>17834386
>Grouping Christianity together with Judaism and Islam
Have fun burning.

>>17834392
They all revere (((Abraham))) and hence are Abrahamic religions. Simple as.

>>17834452
Those flames just got hotter. Enjoy.

>>17834452
What's strange is, Abraham himself said he was dust and ashes compared to God. Yet here you are trying to downplay that same Lord for some incomprehensible reason.

Is it that you're hiding from God and this is your way to try to forget that?

>>17834466
Why should I care what some proto-Jew said about God?

>>17834466
NTA, why do you people always ask about what we're hiding from god or why we hate him? I'm not hiding anything and I can't hate what isn't real.

>>17826084 (OP)
You believe in talking snakes and flying rabbis.