bacht

Rhutchin is ignoring the fact that the Mesopotamian king lists ascribe fantastically long lives to people before the flood. Like much in the Old Testament, the Hebrews copied this idea from someone else.

Enoch lived for 365 years. Can anyone seriously doubt that this is a symbolic number?

Gullwind

You are assuming that the way I read it is different from what the text means. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

Thats what a geneology does.

Not necessarily triplets, but it would be reasonable to conclude that one of the three, probably the first one named, was born when Terah was 70.

Now stop dodging the question and answer this: if it went on to say that Abram lived 80 years and begat Shem, that it would be reasonable to conclude that we are now talking about a time roughly 150 years after the birth of Terah?

rhutchin

Perhaps the Mesopotamian copied it from the Hebrews.

OK. Symbolic of what?

rhutchin

No. You read the text different from the way that I read the text. I don't think we have agreed on what the text actually says and could then determine who is reading it different from the text.

Interesting twist that you throw into the pot. What would make you want to do that? Are you being consistent with the argument you have been making?

So, would you conclude that Abram was born to Terah when Terah was 70?

Sure reasonable according to our western way of thinking. Not necessarily true or reasonable according to the Hebrew way of thinking.

Gullwind

Right. I'm reading what it actually says, you're speculating on what it might possibly have meant in order that your preconceptions might be right.

Yes. Can you show differently? Given the rarity of triplets it seems reasonable to conclude that the three were born within a few years of each other.

Thats what I would take from it. But I'll bet you think you have a clever reason to conclude otherwise.

So all you have to do is come up with some actual evidence that what the bible actually says isn't what it means. Funny how you accuse "evolutionists" of using just-so stories, but they work just fine for supporting your particular interpretation of the bible.

Lunawalk

I thought you were in favor of Moses' resurrection. I am not refering to the resurrection of the elect. The bible does refer to Moses's resurrection in Jude 1:9

.I think this is tne verse Philo was refering to.
The other verse is Mark 9:2-4

I think you misunderstood me.If I say JFK survived his assassination and still alive today according to the word of the LORD. Would you believe that statement?

rhutchin

Paul says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinth 5:8). So, any person whom God has saved goes to be with God on death. This applied to Moses as it does to all others. However, I don't think this is the resurrection that the Bible speaks of at the end of time.

Only if you could substantiate your claim by proper reference to the Scripture. I am not now aware of anything in the Bible that addresses JFK and suggests that he is alive today (except that he could be alive and in heaven).

rhutchin

What you are reading is a translation that you then understand according to your 21st century mindset. I am reading the text to be consistent with everything else I find in the Bible. We use different methods to understand what the Bible is saying. You are not just reading the text. You are reading the text and then telling what you think it means.

So, that which is "reasonable to conclude" is the test that you think we should apply. How do you think we could determine that which is "reasonable to conclude" over that which is not "reasonable to conclude"?

Well, elsewhere we are told that Terah died at the age of 205 and that Abraham then left to go to Canaan. In addition, Abraham is described as being 75 years old at that time. Thus, we would conclude that Terah was 130 when Abraham was born (Gen 11-12). Should we incorporate this information into out understanding of Gen 11:26 or just go with your gut, 21st century take on the verse? I don't know if this is "clever" but it is a different way of looking at the situation.

How about if we treat each the same. Collect all the information that the Bible offers on an issue and try to understand the issue based on all that information. Similarly, collect all the information that biology offers on an issue and do the same regarding the claims of evolutionists.

Gullwind

Which is exactly what you are doing. You just think you have more justification for your opinion. You're still ignoring the ages given, you're just assuming it means something else because otherwise you would be wrong.

Oh, I don't know. How about just going by what the text says?

Oh, yeah. I'd forgotton about that little contradiction. No wonder you brought up that specific case. Well, my 21st century take is that one contradiction doesn't mean all the other ages must be wrong too. If you saw a hundred clocks, 99 of which said the same time, would you assume the one oddball is right? Seems like that is what you're doing.

Sure. Shall we apply the same standard to the Iliad? How about Beowulf? The Ramayana?

You are assuming the biblical accounts are true when that has not been accepted. Whether the bible says the earth is 6,000 or 15,000 years old has nothing whatsoever to do with the literal mountains of evidence that thay are both wrong.

Lunawalk

I was not talking about the resurrection at the end of time. The Bible appers to be saying Moses was resurrected according to Jude 1:9 and in Mark 9:2-4 where it has Moses and Elijah speaking to Jesus at the tranfigration. it it implying Moses was resurrected at an earlier time.


1.Let me try again lets say A reporter writing for the NY Times wrote this statement Acorrding to the word of the LORD, JFK HAS surrivived his assassination and is still alive today. would you believe that statement?
2. If I can prove my claim that there is a prophesy in the bible about JFK surrviving his assassination and the still alive today, why would you still believe it desite evidence of the film of his death funernal and burial?
3. why is any claim in the bible like Noah 's Ark true?