Primitive Spongebob I have hard time making out what he says without the caption. The way he talks is a bit annoying, and at times too fast and unclear to me.
@@starktynt4103you know that person, the one who, then people joke around, desides to say smth, and suddenly everyone goes quiet and just look at him like "that's a bit much". Long story short, that's you, I was joking, and you're a bit much
@@potmki6601 sorry it hurt you , man , i deleted it for my love for you . I thought you can handle a joke afterall you compare yourself as everyone and joke around yourself . Peace
They sure did a good pun but ignored Miles Mathis as being the most groundbreaking scientist you've never heard of. He is the first one to have modeled the nucleus with logic instead of seeing it as a messy ball of atoms. His theory of the charge field being made out of near IR-photons, all with a mass and a radius, is what has made it possible to go further than anyone before him in the field of science.
ah! For some reason, the last lines gave me chills. I could listen to Addison Anderson talk all day. He's by far my favorite narrator from the TedEx team.
Shubham Mk and i loved thou most beutifully because the most unknown beauty lies beneath their own sorrow. Which is the keyboard or phone pad. And a rug/mat
Great video. Would have been good to mention that Nicolas Steno was a bishop in the Catholic church and venerated as a saint soon after his death. He was officially beatified in 1988. The most groundbreaking scientist you never heard of who laid the groundwork for evolution was also a saint! Pretty cool.
@@williamwilson6499 The canonization process has stages, beatification is the penultimate. Technically he is already a saint, because saints are everyone who has gone to Heaven, after death of course. A canonized saint is someone so extraordinary that there isn't any doubt of him/her, being in Heaven, which is usually proved by a miracle, performed by God, through the candidate's intercession. So, being a "blessed" means at least one miracle has been accepted, and he can be venerated in his country or other kind of territory. If he is canonized as a saint, after a second miracle, he can be set as an example to all Catholics around the world.
Specifically, he has been beatified but not canonized. This is a recognition of holiness and ability to intercede in Heaven, but doesn't involve papal infallibility, nor generally allow the various honorific gestures allowed toward saints (e.g. dedication of churches in their name). Also worth noting is that his interest in theology came after his interest in natural science, and he ended his scientific career to pursue it.
I assumed he was affiliated with the church because of his picture in the beginning. Now I wonder if this may have something to do with why we never hear of him, did the church not like his conclusions? 😥
Another scientist whom I believe would also fit inside this category is Gregor Mendel. Father of modern genetics, whose works published in 1866 were discredited at firsthand by the then current scientific community until its rediscovery in 1900. 16 years after his death.
Wolfie Zimpleman you still believe that happened with the glaring examples used in this video proving that wrong? Neither Stano nor Darwin were arrsted but you keep propagating Enlightenment propaganda of "everyone thought the earth was flat" "scientists were burned at the stake" like it's fact, even though it's been proven time and again that no one got killed, clergymen were the most noted scientists of the time, we still use scientific breakthroughs brought on by them and secular scientists that WEREN'T killed or disrupted. Lmao at society
U guys make me happy! hearing that sound as the video starts is like a learner's on switch; you know that your going to learn something new and the animations and arguments leave you wanting more and more. Thanks guys for the effort, expect my sub.
Just failed to mention he was a convert to Catholicism who became a bishop and is currently on the way to being considered a saint. Most groundbreaking scientist you've never heard of was a Catholic bishop. Surely it was just an oversight that that wasn't mentioned.
Tim zdencanovic It wasn't mentioned in any spoken way but at the beginning of the video there is a portrait of him depicted as a bishop. So I would say they acknowledged him being a man of the church while making his scientific work the focus of the video.
Omar Mejia-Ramos That doesn't explain away jack shit. By pulling out that tired mantra of yours, you seem to be implying that he had no choice but to profess belief and therefore, we can ignore Steno's religiosity (if this was not your intention, I apologize in advance for presuming too much). But the reality is, Nicolas Steno did have a choice when it came to pursuing a church career; not everybody was obliged to become a priest! If Steno and other priest-scientists like him were only religious to save face, then why would they make the effort to become priests in the first place? Political gain? Sponsorship from the Church? Perhaps, but in Steno's case, once you consider that Steno, raised Lutheran, converted to Catholicism in 1667 and was ordained a priest only in 1675 AFTER the bulk of his scientific contributions had been made (the shark teeth incident was in 1667, his dissertation on stratigraphy was published in 1669), it seems likely (at least, to me) that Steno's religiosity was sincere. And in the end, so what if Steno was an important scientist as well as a religious figure? It's not like the existence of such a character makes Christianity or the supernatural any more or less true. Give credit where credit is due.
Technically, you're correct. We accept knowledge gained by science until it is disproved (or improved upon, thereby gaining a higher degree of predictive power). In a strictly colloquial sense, I think it's safe to use the word "proved" when referring to cornerstones of science.
The best explanation of science for me came from a Jesuit brother who is also a planetary scientist. Guy Consolmagno once said that science wasn't a set of facts but a dialog and discussion of a community about data.
4:10 "Beautiful is what we see, more beautiful is what we know, most beautiful, by far, is what we don't." That's why creationists will never understand science, ask questions and be delighted for not knowing the answers. Yet.
+Marc Abelha I believe the word for your meaning is "fundamentalists." Plenty of people believe in the facts brought to light by science while also embracing the mysteries explored through faith.
Actually, the Bible specifically tells people to explore and try to understand the world around them. Some of the world's greatest scientists have believed in the Biblical creation account. Being a creationist does not mean not asking questions - quite the opposite, really.
Apledore Being a creationist, according to what you wrote, is asking questions but not bothering with answers -we already knew the answer from the start, isn't it?
Remy Schrader Oh, but I didn't meant faith, which can be applied to the scientific method and peer review, I really meant creationists. See, creationists throw logic and science away, the facts are just in front of them, but they cannot comprehend. Creationists have to wrap themselves with philosophy, and wordings, and analogies in order to make their cases, but they lack the humility to recognize that they don't have the science to understand what's all about. The majority of creationists are unlike to put a bullet in my head for saying that, a fundamentalist might.
Once I was explained why the the first letter of the first word, of the first book in the bible is in fact the second letter of the alphabet. The first letter, the Aleph, is like an X, open to all sides, while the second letter, the Bet, is like a letter C, open to only one direction. The meaning is that you are allowed to search and ask in only one direction of knowledge, but don't go looking anywhere else. Kind of summarizes and put a perspective in the religious view of the reality.
+Allan Richardson He was saying that the title made it sound like it was going to talk about a scientist named "Addison Anderson". Which was alluding to the tittle being poorly constructed.
@@AgentDRJ If you've watched TED-Ed videos at all, you'll know that their titles are always in the format "Lesson title - Lesson contributor". It's not exactly poorly constructed as it's consistent with the rest of their videos, but I guess for any new viewers, this particular title might seem ambiguous.
Looking at some of the comments below, I wish the video had made clearer that Steno was not only an acute scientific thinker but a catholic convert, priest, bishop - and remarkably pious at that (leading to his eventual beatification). I know, that the creators of this Ted-Ed paid non-verbal homage to the fact via the "gallery image" scene at the beginning of the clip, but that was obviously way to subtle for the science-vs-religion-crowd. And while doubtlessly someone will be moved to shout (in fact has shouted below already): "He abandoned science for superstition later in his life!", his biography reads otherwise. For he did his initial comparative religious studies before 1667 (when he left Lutheranism to convert to the Catholic Church) and published De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento dissertationis prodromus (referenced in this video) only two years later. He continued to engage in scientific discourse in the 1670s on his journeys. With his ordination to the priesthood 1675 the focus of his work shifted naturally. But his studies on the brain and nerve system (with Kerckring - another catholic convert) also mentioned in this TED video, were done during his Hamburg days - post 1684 when he was long a priest and bishop - indeed a fervent man of the counter reformation who reputedly sold his ring and cross to give the money to the poor, dressed in an old cloak and fasted 4 days a week, and underwent ridicule from the protestant ruling house for his pious antics. People may view his live and thought as they will, but it seems somehow arrogant to postulate a dichotomy in this man's intellect, when the only reason to do so is one's own bias. That is polemic not scientific and certainly not worthy of a man who is lauded in this video precisely as someone whose searching mind went beyond accepted ideas.
Petros Oratiou I think Caio was not only trying to add extra knowledge of the person talked about in the video, but that religion (Catholicism as specified), does not and did not hold back science.
David H It was a rhitoric question. Religon doesn't hold back science as long as science has a priority over religious beliefs. For instance any person that will assume that he knows the answers because his religion told him so and doesn't bother experimenting or even thinking about a topic, is not doing science.
Not saying that I personally think the pineal gland is the seat of the soul, but how does proving other animals have one prove that it isn't. Couldn't that just be proof that other animals have souls?
Why would you assume that things said in the Bible are true? You literally have no logical reason to, unless you can prove it by actual observation and experimentation.
Animatotron I wasn't specifying that you were doing that, I was merely pointing out the flaws in the arguments of the people who did who were mentioned in the video; sorry if that was unclear.
sicktoaster You're right. There's more evidence that suggests that the pineal gland is the organ of the soul than there is to disprove this. Simply finding pineal glands in animals disproves nothing. Scientists just have a long history of doing whatever it takes to disprove spirituality no matter how self evident it may be. Not talking about religion that is clearly bs.
@@ericlouclair2585 I am sorry you feel that way. However science and religion are tied together in our minds and society. One thing that religion teaches or is supposed to teach is love. Not romantic love but love for our fellow humans. Yes a lot of religion either contradicts the Golden Rule or flat out denies it. But Moses, Christ, Confucius and many others loving your fellow human was center to the religion. I do not defend any religion that does not place loving others as it bases. And neither should anyone. Keep loving Science!
I love you Ted-Ed, The knowledge that you are spreading is so Beautiful and the ease of sharing the vast knowledge is simply marvelous. Videos like this will shortly be the first text books of e-knowledge. I would say many minds would be in debt to your videos, cause many will find events in these videos magnificent, as equally important as your presentation. Thank you for all of your mind boggling videos
when i first saw the title i immediately googled "addison anderson" before i clicked the video and saw no wikipedia page about him. i was like "damn, this scientist surely didnt get much spotlight"
I'm a descendant of goldsmiths from the UK (hence, my last name) and salt miners, who worked on the first mechanized automatons, in France. I'm also a cousin, 11x removed, to Sir Isaac Newton. Typically, some professions are more conductive to others in helping to facilitate the growth of science through creativity, imagination, and discovery. Likewise, I also was fascinated with sharks' teeth as a child, and built a huge collection of them. For a long time, I wanted to become a paleontologist, and study fossils, which includes a lot of geology as well. This video was fascinating to watch, and it also explains a lot about my own heritage and interests.
+Amber Goldsmith Nah, wouldn't say so. I mean yeah, your genes got a huge influence, but they don't determine the things you like or don't like. There are a few more - also more plausible - explanations than you being soooomehow related to Newton or the goldsmiths from the UK.
Leon That's like saying that "the UK royal family isn't descended from Queen Victoria". My family literally spent 3 years of research on records and verification on our family tree. Me being related to Newton and being descended from certain people is not a merely a possibility; it's fact. Trying to "debunk" the claim of someone else when you don't even know the full story or background, or you don't even have evidence to use as refuting, is inappropriate at best, and foolish at worst. Don't make assumptions.
Amber Goldsmith At first: Without any assumptions, I couldn't believe you bc you offer no evidence. But I don't want you to offer this bc I believe you anyway. You pointed everything out but the point I was making. I did not want to offend you and I am sorry if I did.
Amber Goldsmith Not going to lie, that is pretty cool. Some scientists would kill for being related to a cousin 11× removed to Sir Isaac Newton. If you don't mind me asking, why fossils? What is it you aim for in paleontology?
Nicolas Steno (Danish: Niels Steensen; Latinized to Nicolaus Steno or Nicolaus Stenonius; 1 January 1638 - 25 November 1686 [NS: 11 January 1638 - 5 December 1686]) was a Danish scientist, a pioneer in both anatomy and geology, who became a Catholic bishop in his later years. Steno was trained in the classical texts on science; however, by 1659, he seriously questioned accepted knowledge of the natural world. Importantly, he questioned explanations for tear production, the idea that fossils grew in the ground, and explanations of rock formation. His investigations and his subsequent conclusions on fossils and rock formation have led scholars to consider him one of the founders of modern stratigraphy and modern geology. The importance of Steno's foundational contributions to geology may be gauged from the fact that half of the twenty papers in a recent miscellany volume on The Revolution in Geology from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment focus on Steno, the "preeminent Baroque polymath and founder of modern geologic thought".
Red Sniper Yes. It matters because there is whole raft of fundamentalist idiots out there who think that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and don't believe in science.
The title should be corrected to "The most groundbreaking scientist you've never heard of" - Addison Anderson. The title is really confusing. Or change it to "by Addison Anderson" at the end there.
Science is about going where the facts take you, regardless of agendas. Agendas can direct the research, but the research cannot direct the agendas. So, if something is proven, then it is proven, whether you like it or not.
You wouldn't be practicing your blasphemy here without Faraday. Faraday was very religious while you are an atheist and have contributed ABSOLUTE NOTHING, ZERO, NADA to science!
I wonder if you realize that Nicolaus Steno's deep critical thinking also lead him to convert to Catholicism, study theology, bacome a champion of counter-reformation and be beatified. Critical thinking and seek for Truth can lead one to accepting Christianity and understanading it for what it really is. Science and religion are not contrary but complementary. Your content ridiculing and distorting facts about it on your channel is sad.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 critical thinkig it wasn't that at all it was because there was no other explanation for the complexity around him at the time tis sad you deny lots of truths in scienc elike teh big bang and evolution but dismiss others thats waht I call psuedoscinece
Calling Steno a "curious little person" after listing his accomplishments seems unfair. To me the man seems an ignored giant. Thanks for introducing him!
Carlos Jiménez well if god is a scientist he should give some better evidence in his own existence because, he gives very contradicting stories depending on the religion or subgroup.
It's typical youtube comments. People do not pay attention the video, just comment to bash the others. Do you not remember the 11th commandment which the LORD had commanded to the children of Israel? *"Thou shalt not comment underneath a RU-vid video, nor shouldst thou scroll down."*
What do I do for a user if were a scientist in those times u either went priest to get the church approval and live, or get burned or slamed in prison for heresy also the video said he followed his scientific pursue with no loyalties to faith _why do i have to c&p this over and over? why so many are this closed minded?_
MalekitGJ cheese study some history, some ACTUAL history; instead of watching some random videos on RU-vid. "No loyalties to faith?" Where in the video does it say that? It simply says didn't follow ancient texts (like the Greek ones which medieval people did). Do you even know what a heretic is anyways?
The only problem with uniformitarianism is that it doesn't seem to account for catastrophe such as tsunamis and volcanos and such that shape large portions of land very quickly.
Religion is a terrible thing. But... Could it be that within yourself there's a little bit of a creationist and this post is unconsciously directed to yourself? Could it be that the little creationist man hidden is a reminiscent idea of a childhood potentially influenced by religion, maybe religious parents? Maybe strict and conservative grandparents? Maybe the struggle is not about how the earth got created but how a struggle was created by the inappropriate sublimation of ideas suppressed by the arm of a very strong and strict dogma whose ideas didn't serve the proper expression and evolution of a person or set of persons contemplated - maybe, by the astonished eyes of a child? Religion is indeed a terrible thing. Where one man delirates there's a mad person, where two delirate there's religion. But even more terrible yet is a mind that surrenders its freedom, there is no worse form of censorship than self-censorship so allow yourself to be angry and get mad to religion altogether and its effects in the Universe and ultimately in you. So what I would do in your case is write up a letter to all creationists and ultimately yourself, contemplate, sublimate and rage, then, fold the letter and bury it under a tree, then walk free. Maybe this will reflect on you, maybe this will reflect on someone else, maybe these are questions that will vanish in a random RU-vid video, either way, it's Okay.
He meant that he didn't know that he didn't know there was a man like this. So therefore he would have both known and not known at the same time. Scientist n00bs. ;P
cabinboy1031 but that assumes there are only two states that could've been? And in this case there are a wide range of different states that could've been, and just selecting one and calling it a superposition would be inaccurate
I'm reading a book right now called The Abacus and the Cross, which is about the Pope Sylvester II (946 - 1003), also known as the Pope of Science. It was actually the Church during the Dark Ages that was responsible for keeping science and rational inquiry alive. Actually, it was a time when Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars collaborated peacefully with each other. All of this serves as an important example, I think, which is to display to various people with chips on their shoulder, that people all choose to be Religious for many different reasons and that it means something different to everybody. To some people, like myself, Religion serves as a link to the past - not only my past, but the past of everybody - and through vindication we may retrace our steps and resolve the conflicts that we are in today. During the Dark Ages, it was the sophistication, the orderly and educative Churches of the world that were capable of carrying on the torch of science that many of us now hold so dearly to our hearts as the source of all knowledge, as its Latin root suggests.
Saad Armouti Did you even watched the video? According to it, people believed(or even now believe. i don't know) that only humans have soul, not animals. Now everyone believed it to be seat of soul, so it doesn't make sense why animals have it too. That's what the discussion is about. Don't go and change the subject by yourself. No one is arguing whether animals have soul or not. The argument is about the what was said in the video.
2:40 - "[they] studied current very slow rates of erosion and sedimentation and realized that the earth had to be way older than the Biblical guesstimate". Yet, little did they realize that the flood in Genesis 6 can also be a valid explanation for the various rock layers and fossil record. A catastrophic event like this can certainly produce the same results within a matter of weeks. If you are going to try to discount the Bible at least take all of the evidences from it into account. This is just like people trying to argue that there was no way that all the animals could have fit on the ark but they have no idea how big the ark was nor how many animals would have needed to be taken on it. Also, there was no "guesstimate" mentioned in the Bible as God does not need to make guesses. :)
But the bible is so inconsistent its hard to use it as proper evidence. In fact, all the evidence for the books truth comes from the book itself (if thats nit begging the question i dont know what is). For example, if god gave humans free will, then why does he wipe out entire populations when they dont do what he wants? It makes zero sense unless you consider that the bible is false
Funny how i have lived my entire life in the city of Aarhus where there is a museum named after him, the Steno Museum, and i have been there several times during my childhood, and this is the first time i have heard about what he did. Well he was pretty awesome.
There are experts who studied and devoted to christianity their entire life. They estimated that after the holy books, the earth would be around 6000 years old.
thenomaic No person in the Bible reveals their view on an old or young earth - so that is irrelevant as to what their real view was. My go to example of someone who lived closest to Bible times is St Augustine (around the 2nd-3rd century)- he strongly believed that the world was not made in literal 24 hour days - as did many others following him. It is only recently in the 20th century that these American creationists came up with this view.
Moatar Sergiu There was not the scientific data at the time to say otherwise. There isn't the Biblical data either - those people were only guessing and as you rightly point out - they devoted their lives to the study of Scripture NOT whether or not the world is young or old.
Well that's exactly the reason why they came up with these ideas. Because they devote their lives to scripture and so they have no fucking idea how the world works. This wouldn't be a problem if their stupidity didn't afect the rest of us. I'm looking at you historic Templars and current islamic extremists. I don't care if you believe in god or not. But I do care that the more religious a person becomes, the more likely he is to do "bad" things to OTHERS.
I have seriously lost all hope for RU-vid comments "blablabla lol those dummy christians, all of whom literally believe in YEC; I'm so smart and so well informed in theology blablabla". 1. Steno was a Catholic priest. 2. In the portrait he was literally wearing a cross, the large ones that no one but bishops or the pope wear today because it is way too large!
C&P from my own comment: if were a scientist in those times u either went priest to get the church approval and live, or get burned or slamed in prison for heresy also the video said he followed his scientific pursue with no loyalties to faith
Again, study history. Which scientists were seen as heretics? Bruno? 1. He was barely a scientist. 2. Bruno was actually a heretic who denied the church's theological teachings, although it is ungodly and inhuman to burn heretics.
1. Galileo wasn't sentenced to death 2. Galileo's discovery was verified by astronomers of Rome, and they came to accept most of his claims. 2. His condemnation as a heretic has nothing to do with his discovery 3. He was condemned of heresy due to theological reasons, and the counter-reformation atmosphere back in that period which might have exaggerated the issue. Cheese why do people cling unto bad history? (well.. it is quite common though)
Einstein's grandma's wet kiss Unfortunately there's a strong momentum for modern scientists and modern Christians to think the mind has to shut off if you want to be religious. I guess it's their own choice, but personally I think the questioning of my religion has lead to my most fulfilling moments.
One of the most unfortunate spects of Steno's life and studies is that he was forced to rediscover and reformulate all of the discoveries of Leonardo da Vinci, 150 years earlier. If Leonardo's manuscripts had been published, as was intended, then Steno would have had access to the best anatomical drawing of the heart that has ever been made. He would have read Leonardo's studies of fossils and the formation of stratas, and so he would have begun at the point at which he ended, and probably advanced learning a great deal more th he did.
you said malta? CONGRATS HOME ISLAND SOMEONE OUTSIDE KNOWS ABOUT YOU now tell me...what do you think maltese looks like. if you know it don't give hints. I want to see how weird others think our language sounds like
+Lianna Ellul The whole of Great Britain knows and loves Malta. I've visited many times on scuba diving holidays and love the place and it's people. You talk about your "militarily strategic position" and obviously my country is very much involved in that. Big respect to Malta. See you next August :)
+Lianna Ellul Isn't it this little island to the south of Italy that was given over to The Knights when the Ottomans took their former home from them? I don't really know, just playing too much Europa Universalis 4....
I think the video may have mispronounced it. I believe the correct terminology would be "the creationist estimate". As for the amount of time, I'm still educating myself on that.
The biblical guesstimate, based on Genesis 5 giving the age of fathers when their children are born, gives the time from Creation to Noah. Noah through Abraham (around 2000 BC) is given. Matthew gives a geneology from Christ through Abraham. Add it all up and it is roughly 6000 years. (Ussher calculated creation around 4004 BC based on this). That would make the universe roughly 6020 years, since Ussher did his biblical calculations very carefully.
Nadew Haile I'm aware of how the calculations were made. James Ussher also wrote that Moses was born in 1571 yet some people still believe the Exodus took place in the 1200s which is untrue even the Bible testifies to this. The mistake made here is people today use their own reasoning as to what it means when it says the earth and heavens were created. The Genesis account is written in the narrative of God. Here's how. Genesis 4 explains Cain, descended from Adam and Eve, had a wife from a land east of Eden called "Nod" (wandering). Seeing how Cain has a wife shows there were more people on earth but the hadn't been accounted for. Cain, who killed his brother Able, and disobeyed God is not in the genealogy of Adam and Eve. Though he was the physical offspring. Adam and Eve were seen as the first people through God's eyes because they had the knowledge of God. Another example through biblical text. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Genesis 1:3 NIV Apostle Paul explains this in the New Testament. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:6 NIV It's a common error to see things through our own knowledge but the Bible explains this through the proper narrative.
Andrew Welsh I agree. I take the exodus to be 1446 BC because in 1 Kings 6:1 it states that Solomon began to build the temple 480 years after the exodus. Since the temple was built in ~966 BC, then 480 years back is 1446. Since Moses was 80 years old (Acts 7:23 + Acts 7:30) at that time, that means he was born in 1526. But what is 50 years between friends? ;-)
0:39 The pineal gland being in other animals does not disprove that it is not the seat of the soul; there's no connection between those two ideas. But you know what's even more disappointing about that sentence? That you stepped outside of reality and into the world of religious make-believe, and stepped right back into science without even blinking. 2:45 "Biblical guestamate"? A "guestamate" is somewhere between and educated guess and an ignorant guess. How is adding up the begets at all evidential? I do have to hand it to you for even mentioning how trumped Christianity was by science. Most educators are too scared to put the facts next to each other such that people can figure that out.
Another thing is that the bible doesn't state that a man has a soul instead the man is a soul. Lol yah religions are fucked up! They cant even understand their own book for once.
***** Interesting counter, but the point I was trying to get across was that his comment "R.I.P. Christianity" doesn't really pertain to this conversation or this video. I would also add that by "religious" I meant that although many were Deists, they still prayed to a personal God.
***** Rarely I find myself agreeing when it comes to RU-vid comments, but you've basically hit everything right on the head with nuance. Often science videos become a breeding ground for civil discourse (what they expect to gain from it is beyond me). Anyway, your quite on point with everything you've mentioned, but the only thing that I would add is that although Deism was growing in popularity in the scholarly realm, there was still (even to this day) a large number of scientists who were still identifying as religious, in the sense that they subscribed to a particular faith and prayed to a personal god. A large group that shouldn't be overlooked.
+manoj mangam It's never said in the Bible itself, but, corresponding with the rather reasonable argument that the Old Testament is mostly ancient myths rewritten and a bunch of metaphorical legends somehow mixed up with history, there've been lots of scholars and bishops that have written an "estimate" of when does the Bible suggest was the origin of the world, through generational calculations and connecting the dots with egyptian and greek history and myth etc. Perhaps the most famous is archbishop James Ussher's estimate, of around a 6020 years, because the Earth was created approximately in 4004 B.C. All those methods use mostly the Genesis btw lol
+Error404fucknickname "Ancient myths" is a funny way to describe Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Edom, Samaria, Jerusalem, etc, all of which truly existed in the past and some to the present day. Where do you get your disinformation from? The thoroughly misguided and disproven Zeitgeist videos?
mlimli No, school's religion class. Also, I wrote that pretty quickly. I meant to say most of the historical part of the Bible, the Kingdom, Babylon, the Pentateuch, the Exile, etc., is history written as anecdotes, with symbolic representations, inaccurate pseudo-dates, etc. It is history, and most of it can be confirmed through paleontology and generational dating. Also, the Genesis is based on the epic of Gilgamesh, didn't you know? It's quite literally almost entirely the same, and it dates further back than the writing of the Genesis. Our teacher was a douche but he taught us something.
Error404fucknickname The bible is organized thematically, so the history is secondary to it's main message, the foreshadowing and fulfillment of the Messiah's arrival and story of salvation. It revolves around Israel, so it is clearly anecdotal. The assertion that Genesis is based on Gilgamesh is unfounded and has been discussed in countless "Everything Zeitgeist Got Wrong" videos. Whether it dates further than the written Genesis account is impossible to prove, nor would it change anything. Even if Moses recorded the worldwide flood after the Gilgamesh poet, it only confirms the Genesis account more, not less....
