Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 04-17-2007, 05:04 AM

Hi Folks,

Yes Notsri, there not being a rigid chronological sequence is generally accepted and you gave a good example.

Numbers 1:1
And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai,
in the tabernacle of the congregation,
on the first day of the second month,
in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

Numbers 9:1
And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai,
in the first month of the second year after they were
come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

where groundwork is laid before going into the Passover description.
As John Gill says

"in the first month of the second year, after they were come out of the land of Egypt: .... it must be before the numbering of the people the fixing of their standards, the appointment of the Levites, and the dedication of them; since the order for the numbering of the people was on the first day of the second month, Numbers 1:1, but the account of them was postponed to this time, in order to give a relation of an affair which was not finished until the second month, and therefore the whole is laid together here:"

So your "no precise chronology" is better than the over-general "sequence of", since the place where the 120 years is announced is similarly by no means restricted to have taken place chronologically after -

Genesis 5:32
And Noah was five hundred years old:
and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth

since it has its own independent segue, the -
"sons of God saw the daughters of men"

So I withdraw my concern about the commentary, and do agree that it is the easiest and most consistent explanation (that the decree was given 120 years before the flood). While still wondering if the Jerome view has any known auxiliary support. It does seems likely that Jerome got his idea from some rabbinical views in Israel c 400 AD .. (unless it also shows up in some earlier church commentary.. of which we apparently don't have any record).

Shalom,
Steven

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-17-2007, 05:04 AM	#31
Steven Avery Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 2,293	Hi Folks, Yes Notsri, there not being a rigid chronological sequence is generally accepted and you gave a good example. Numbers 1:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, Numbers 9:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, where groundwork is laid before going into the Passover description. As John Gill says "in the first month of the second year, after they were come out of the land of Egypt: .... it must be before the numbering of the people the fixing of their standards, the appointment of the Levites, and the dedication of them; since the order for the numbering of the people was on the first day of the second month, Numbers 1:1, but the account of them was postponed to this time, in order to give a relation of an affair which was not finished until the second month, and therefore the whole is laid together here:" So your "no precise chronology" is better than the over-general "sequence of", since the place where the 120 years is announced is similarly by no means restricted to have taken place chronologically after - Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth since it has its own independent segue, the - "sons of God saw the daughters of men" So I withdraw my concern about the commentary, and do agree that it is the easiest and most consistent explanation (that the decree was given 120 years before the flood). While still wondering if the Jerome view has any known auxiliary support. It does seems likely that Jerome got his idea from some rabbinical views in Israel c 400 AD .. (unless it also shows up in some earlier church commentary.. of which we apparently don't have any record). Shalom, Steven

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.