How old is Norway?

[Steve53]

So I was just reading in my history and so much more book about what Paul says about being quarrelsome.
I think I'll take it to heart and stop being like that.

You were being quarrelsome???? Well take this ! And that!

[Mom2ten]

Why the perception someone or another isn't already lightened up?

It was just a lighthearted comment

[araj54]

You were being quarrelsome???? Well take this ! And that!

[Iovan]

No the Bible isn't just a history book but it does contain a lot of history. The Bible extensively documents history and its documentation of that history is important. Denying the truth of that history puts the whole book into doubt. It may not for you in particular (putting the thought from your mind) but it does for others who would use it as an excuse for why they can't trust for example what the Gospels say. The attacks on the Bible's history are numerous and defending the Bible is important.

Also I say this with as much humility as I can put forth (knowing that I am not humble by nature but through the Holy Spirit learn to humble myself more and more) it shouldn't be jumped on that any discussion of this is "quarreling". It seems to me that the discussion has been pretty tame, though I will admit I may have sounded harsh in my first reply (I didn't mean to come off in a mean way). We should be steadfast defenders of the truth and the Bible is truth (being a record of God's Word). I have yet to come across a "problem" with the Bible that stands in truth. Instead they stand in what men think and believe not know about one thing or another. Much of their claims fall apart upon further inspection though.

[Mom2ten]

Going off the record just a tad....Drudge is reporting that it took the cops 90 minutes to respond to the Oslo terror

[ImOnStandby221]

to clarify my statement, i hold that the Bible is completely 100% accurate in everything it speaks about, including history. it's absoluely a history book. does it expalin all of world history? of course not. no mention of ghengis kahn or easter island. but the facts of what it does mention are totally accurate.

[Mom2ten]

Going off the record just a tad....Drudge is reporting that it took the cops 90 minutes to respond to the Oslo terror

[ComeLordJesus]

I was just thinking about Pangea today. Maybe if there was just one landmass, then it was broken into pieces when people were scattered. Norway could have 5,000 year old settlements.

[araj54]

Has it been 5000 years since the tower of babel and the scattering of the people???

[ComeLordJesus]

Has it been 5000 years since the tower of babel and the scattering of the people???

I've heard it's been 4,000 or so since Abraham, so who knows? Just an idea I was thinking about today.

[Iovan]

It's been a little more than 4,000 since the Tower of Babel by most considerations. The founding of Babylon was around 2,200 BC.

"The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens’) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...2/i1/peleg.asp

[Hootmon]

You were being quarrelsome???? Well take this ! And that!

[araj54]

It's been a little more than 4,000 since the Tower of Babel by most considerations. The founding of Babylon was around 2,200 BC.

"The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens’) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...2/i1/peleg.asp

Thank you.

[Hootmon]

A discussion of just what the Tower of Babel story tells us, and what it doesnt, is worthy of its own thread.

As with most of the older Bible accounts, I assume there is a lot of truth and a lot of assumptions. Never really studied in in depth though.

[araj54]

I should have ranted. That pup gave me a black eye and then laughed about it.

[NewStandard]

Looking up Norway after the terrorist acts I came across this from Wiki... "In the southern part of the country are dwelling sites dating from about 5000 BC."

Does anybody believe this?

Post your thoughts!

Wiki states that things go back even further than 5000 BC.

Prehistory
Main article: Scandinavian prehistory
The first inhabitants were the Ahrensburg culture (11th to 10th millennia BC) which was a late Upper Paleolithic culture during the Younger Dryas, the last spell of cold at the end of the Weichsel glaciation. The culture is named after village of Ahrensburg, 25 km (15.53 mi) northeast of Hamburg in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein where wooded arrow shafts and clubs have been excavated.[15] The earliest traces of human occupation in Norway are found along the coast, where the huge ice shelf of the last ice age first melted between 11,000 and 8000 BC. The oldest finds are stone tools dating from 9500 to 6000 BC, discovered in Finnmark (Komsa culture) in the north and Rogaland (Fosna culture) in the southwest. However, theories about two altogether different cultures (the Komsa culture north of the Arctic Circle being one and the Fosna culture from Trøndelag to Oslo Fjord being the other) were rendered obsolete in the 1970s. More recent finds along the entire coast revealed to archaeologists that the difference between the two can simply be ascribed to different types of tools and not to different cultures. Coastal fauna provided a means of livelihood for fishermen and hunters, who may have made their way along the southern coast about 10,000 BC when the interior was still covered with ice. It is now thought that these so-called “Arctic” peoples came from the south and followed the coast northward considerably later. Some may have come along the ice-free coast of the Kola Peninsula, but the evidence of this is still poor.
In the southern part of the country are dwelling sites dating from about 5000 BC. Finds from these sites give a clearer idea of the life of the hunting and fishing peoples. The implements vary in shape and mostly are made of different kinds of stone; those of later periods are more skillfully made. Rock carvings (i. e. petroglyphs) have been found, usually near hunting and fishing grounds. They represent game such as deer, reindeer, elk, bears, birds, seals, whales, and fish (especially salmon and halibut), all of which were vital to the way of life of the coastal peoples. The carvings at Alta in Finnmark, the largest in Scandinavia, were made at sea level continuously from 4,200 to 500 BC and mark the progression of the land as it rose from the sea after the last ice age (Rock carvings at Alta).

[Iovan]

In regards to the wiki snippet,

Old-age dating methods and naturalist presuppositions. Most of the ages they arrive at are based on criteria they presuppose, which they rework if it conflicts with other age measurements that have been "established" by much of the same biased criteria. If you assume there is no God and assume that evolution is true then old-ages become a necessity. The assumption that sediments need a long time to be set down (ignoring the very real explanation of the Flood) and many assumptions about the growth of human civilization.

While some people are quick to embrace long age dating methods (without evaluating the evidence more thoroughly) they are the antithesis of the Bible. If you assume they are correct (despite heaps of information to the contrary) then you call Jesus a liar as he both confirmed Adam and Eve were made "in the beginning" [Mark 10:6] (i.e. not after a long process of age and evolution) and also that Noah and the global flood were real [Matthew 24:37–39] (which destroys the long ages that you get by assuming slow sediment buildup). The Bible and old-ages are incompatible even though compromise is often attempted (by one group only) to mesh the two together. You can't have evolution (which is the foundation of old-age reasoning) and the Bible. If one is true then the other is not for death entered in through Adam's sin and didn't exist prior to that.

[Jsrr]

From my own point of view is that the Bible is not a history book. My wife asks about dinosaurs, and I said what purpose do dinosaurs have to teaching you the way to live your life for G-d.

Question...unrelated but still my question...Why do I frequently see GOD written as it is above...G-D ? Its almost as if its written to be bleeped out. I hope thats not the case.

As for the topic of discussion...All our answers will soon be questioned when Jesus brings us home. I just hope I have relied on faith and Biblical principals enough to provide people with the best answers I know how

[BarbT]

Why do I frequently see GOD written as it is above...G-D ?

Jsrr, I'm probably explaining it wrong but to my knowledge it's a Jewish custom that shows reverence for God. His name is so high, so holy they don't feel worthy to say the word.

[Hootmon]

...to my knowledge it's a Jewish custom that shows reverence for God. His name is so high, so holy they don't feel worthy to say the word.

Its the same reason that they refer to 'HaShem' meaing 'the Name' instead of using the tetragrammaton 'YHWH'.