Catholic Online Forum

The first interactive Catholic Forum on the web
It is currently 24 May 2013 06:18

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2013 20:21 
Offline
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member

Joined: 08 Aug 2007 07:34
Posts: 125
Location: Central Florida
Is anyone familiar with "The Annals of the World"?

In the years 1650-1654, James Ussher set out to write a history of the world from creation to A.D. 70. The result was published in 1658 as the literary classic "The Annals of the World." This famous comprehensive history of the world, originally published in Latin, offers a look at history rarely seen. Ussher traveled throughout Europe, gathering much information from the actual historical documents. Many of these documents are no longer available, having been destroyed since the time of his research.

Integrating biblical history (around 15 percent of the text is from the Bible) with secular sources, Ussher wrote this masterpiece. Considered not only a literary classic, but also an accurate reference, "The Annals of the World" was so highly regarded for its preciseness that the timeline from it was included in the margins of many King James Version Bibles throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.


http://creationwiki.org/The_Annals_of_the_World

Frank

_________________
Frank Russell
The more you learn; the more you learn that there is to learn!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2013 20:28 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14686
Location: Sydney, Australia
Frank,

That would be Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto. ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabes").

Yes, I'm familiar with it. It was considered quite a hoot when I was a schoolboy.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2013 20:48 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14686
Location: Sydney, Australia
A more accurate timeline, based on available evidence:

Quote:
The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:

3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
550 million years of complex animals,
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of mammals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
65 million years since the dinosaurs died out,
2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2013 18:10 
Offline
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member

Joined: 08 Aug 2007 07:34
Posts: 125
Location: Central Florida
James, thank you for your response. What I'm really wondering is considering James Ussher was a Protesrtant how reliable to a Catholic is this work? At almost a 1,000 pages it must be quite a read. It, apparently, was translated from his original Latin to English recently. Thank goodness, my high school Latin of almost 60 years ago; wouldn't get me very far.

Frank

_________________
Frank Russell
The more you learn; the more you learn that there is to learn!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2013 19:21 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14686
Location: Sydney, Australia
Frank,

It is a fundamentalist, literalist reading of the Old Testament that is at variance with Catholic tradition.

St Augustine himself warns us about this,

Quote:
In "City of God", Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings. In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a literal account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way — it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally. Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_ ... o#Creation

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2013 19:48 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4959
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
Yes, I'm familiar with it. It was considered quite a hoot when I was a schoolboy.


I assume this was after Einstein published?

Time is always relative. Without even considering God outside of time --in my opinion it is quite presumptuous to suggest that time has always remained the same period universally and further that time is referenced universally to Earth.

Two different length time lines can be equal and coincident in span RELATIVELY speaking.

What a hoot. :wink:

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2013 16:53 
Offline
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member

Joined: 08 Aug 2007 07:34
Posts: 125
Location: Central Florida
Thank you Jim and Dan, two (for me) fascinating responses suggesting a concept that would never have occurred to me. Having said that; there are a lot of things that would never occur to me. However, considering that it was "Earthlings" that were the receivers of the "Words from God"; then the timelines used would have been appropriatly Earth's?

Again thanks, Frank

_________________
Frank Russell
The more you learn; the more you learn that there is to learn!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2013 17:45 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4959
philosophicallyfrank wrote:
However, considering that it was "Earthlings" that were the receivers of the "Words from God"; then the timelines used would have been appropriatly Earth's?


In my opinion, taking things 'literally' regarding time in for instance the bible or science is a two edged sword -it cuts both ways whether one accepts the scientific timeline alone or the biblical timeline alone as supreme authority -doing such implies one or the other is 'correct' and by default, the other is incorrect -WHEN, the reality must be that both are correct. Faith seeking understanding...

A movie recommendation that may get you thinking outside the box:

dlm wrote:
The Genesis Code (2010) - IMDb

This is another movie I found quite enjoyable. If you are interested in theoretical physics, God, and the debate involving creation versus big bang then you will enjoy this one.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2013 18:30 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14686
Location: Sydney, Australia
Frank,

We should understand Scripture the way the Church understands it, the way the Church has understood it for the last twenty centuries. Scripture means what the Church teaches us it means.

The first chapter of the Book of Genesis is not a Star Trek episode.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2013 16:52 
Offline
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member

Joined: 08 Aug 2007 07:34
Posts: 125
Location: Central Florida
Not the slightest smidgen of disagreement with you on that. My reference to "Earthlings" was not meant in "Star Trek Speak"; but, as opposed to "Celestually" or "Galactically" or whatever. Not that I don't admit to having been a fan of "Star Trek" and "Space Patrol" well before it. Anyone old enough to remember "Commander Cody" or "Captain Video" before him?

Frank

_________________
Frank Russell
The more you learn; the more you learn that there is to learn!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group