Chuck Rightmire

One of the things that keeps striking me as I read these posts, and I'll admit to not having read every one, is that no one seems to have mentioned the medieval bestiaries. These were written about things supposedly current in their time, which is much closer to us than the begats were to Josephus, and they make some extraordinary claims about creatures that existed at that time. Flying monkey-like mammals, unicorns, griffins and a few others I can't recall. If their knowledge of their current time, which included more use of horses and boats and widespread trade, including trade through to China at times, was so limited, then how can we believe that Josephus, or others writing at their time were any more accurate about the events 2000 years behind them? We can't fully historicize things that happened on or about the BCE and CE split from this point. At a time when intellectual activity was feeling its way, how can we be sure that they had any proof of anything? It does seem that biblical passages were oral tradition until only about half a millennium before the end of the Old Testament.

And, as I understand it, the earliest translators of the Sumerian King Lists not only pointed out the time lines of the kings, but also the apparent similarity in the ratios between the kings and the patriarchs. If those figures have changed, can someone point to a source?

Calilasseia

In response to Mung Bean above:

Nope.

I don't see my genome unravelling any time soon.

But sadly I don't see myself living to be 1,000 years old either. Pity. Would be nice to watch the first manned mission to Alpha Centauri in total immersion virtual reality holographic TV, but I won't be around for that. However, hopefully my continued activity in places like this will go some way toward ensuring that it happens without a 500-year blip in which we have to catch up again with lost knowledge because too many idiots thought going back to the Dark Ages was a good idea. We already lost a good 500 years of progress the first time round.

Elijah

Why I think our life spans dropped when we ate the fruit is that when we ate the fruit (metaphorically speaking) and gained knowledge we gained the power to leave our natural habitat (garden). Animals out of their natural habitat don’t live as long.

I think the long lifespan themselves is what led to the mental leap we took in the first place. Eventually nature was going to come up with an animal it couldn’t kill.

mung bean

Elijah, what bloody evidence do you have that our lifespans were ever considerably longer than they are now?

Elijah

Well it's part of our oral tradition.

Edit addition...

It's the only reason I've heard that made sense for the huge mental separation of us from the animals is that we had a period/s of longer lifespans to develop that mental ability. Not really evidence but just adding.

The Evil One

Um, big brain?

Elijah

Wii?

mung bean

So are dragons and unicorns.

I agree that is not really evidence.
Quite apart from the example of our larger brains, are you aware that recent genetic surveys in other primates have determined that a mutated form of one of the genes coding for brain structure is responsible for mental retardation in humans but this same form is the standard, unmutated gene in macaques?

Elijah

We've probably had some form of dragons and unicorns in our past probably not the fire breathing magical kind, but you should get the idea.

I don't know what your point is with the "unmutated gene" stuff. You think a mutated gene gave us really big brains?

The Evil One

Don't know about "change", but the version of the SKL that was linked to here does not match Genesis particularly closely. There are 8 pre-Flood kings but 9 pre-Flood patriarchs (not counting Noah). The first reign is about equal to Adam's age multiplied by 30, but that ratio doesn't hold down the list.

Possibly the Babylonian or Assyrian equivalent documents are more like Genesis. A priori one would expect that they would be.

ETA: the Wikipedia article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Adam" shows the comparison that you are thinking of (scroll down). I am sceptical about some of it, e.g. they have made up the numbers (a) by adding Ziusudra as a match for Noah, but that is a minority reading of the king list, and (b) by adding Enmenana, also not in all versions of the king list. Extensive textual criticism will be needed to demonstrate the link; I'm sure this has been done, but I haven't seen it.