Cheerful Charlie

No. Many myth cycles of that age claimed people lived tremendous ages, but it is mythology.

CC

Roger Pearse

If you look at the Chronicle of Eusebius, book 1, he quotes material from Alexander Polyhistor which in turn is taken from Berossus, a priest of Bel in Babylon writing in the early Seleucid period (ca. 300). This has enormous numerals for lengths of reigns; so much so that Eusebius expresses his doubts about how this could possibly be so.

Firstly the numerals could be corrupt, as it was very hard for isolated numbers in Greek and Latin texts to avoid this; secondly the word for the measurement express a word which tends to be rendered as 'year' but could be 'month' or some shorter period. The various changes in language involved allow the introduction of mistranslations, meaning that what reached Eusebius may not have been what Berossus intended to say; or what the ancient temple records originally meant before Berossus transcribed them in the manner of his own day. There are references to myriads of years -- which might be 10,000's of years, if myriad=10,000; or 'large chunks' if myriad is being used more loosely. And so on. These issues were certainly known, therefore, to the ancients.

There seems no real reason why very large numbers in OT texts could not have suffered such a process also; namely that they could be corrupted in transmission, or else originally express ideas which do not come across by a simple rendition as 'n years'.

As far as I am aware the precise lengths of the reigns of ante-diluvian kings are of no theological significance to anyone, and it would be imprudent to infer theological conclusions from these pieces of data about very ancient reign-lengths in ancient texts.

Eusebius: "And indeed if for so many thousands of years, which are calculated according to their chronography, the successors (as kings) of the nations were also mentioned as equally long-lived, and likewise any works and deeds carried out in the period (take a long time), corresponding to the length of the period, perhaps one might justifiably question whether it is possible that in fact in some way the truth is not in these things.

Indeed because they assigned so many myriads of years for the reign of just ten men, who would not consider that stories of this kind were not fables and the products of deranged minds? It may be then that the 'sars' that we have mentioned before do not signify a 'year' but another short interval of time. Likewise among the ancestors of the Egyptians they used to speak of lunar cycles, i.e. the days of a month, 30 days altogether, calling these 'years'."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Cheerful Charlie

Not Abraham, but Methuselah. The Bible tells us Noah, his sons and his wife and their wives were aboard the ark, but there is no Methuselah aboard the ark. Usually this is explained away by a scribal slip of the pen that made Methuselah too old, but that is hard to sustain.

CC

Roger Pearse

I would only wonder whether there was any practical difference between this oft-repeated statement and saying "unwelcome claims require extraordinary evidence"? I rather think that 9 times out of 10 there is not. Let's be open-minded at least until we have examined the data, hey?

Interesting. What is the word for year used?

...as they now are. If so, does this statement (and all those that followed) not mean only that the ante-diluvians were not like modern men? Since we are supposing that they lived to be thousands of years old, I think that we knew that already...

I'm not in any sense committed to the proposition that ante-diluvians lived for a vast period. I merely point out an argument that has no content once you examine it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dave Hawkins

Deadman .... Are you trying to say Manetho is useless as a historical source? Try telling that to the Egyptologists.

Sven

Humbug.

patchy

I say: anybody who believes it is a fucking idiot.



You asked.

Sven

And I would answer: The work of tens of thousands of archeologists of the last 150+ years, probably weighing several thousands tons (excluding the buildings they dig up, of course).
This is one of the most silly (rhetorical) questions I've ever read.

Of course. The reason is very simple: Extraodinary claims requiring extraodrinary evidence.
BTW, Dave, there's an invisble dragon in my garage. Please explain your reasons why you don't believe this immediately.

I don't believe what liars like Morris say.

seven8s

If it is mythology, what is the purpose of myth? Belief in a supernatural being? What does that mean, if it is all metapor? Living above, superior to what is natural, iow's living or being within a superior mode of operation?

What is natural?

What is the metaphor in 1000 years, grand years? What is grand?

If there were a superior way of being, how would we know what that superior way is? Can we use our senses to determine those qualities?

Dave Hawkins

Sven ... You are telling me that we know all about ancient history because of pottery and chariot wheels and swords and such, but we don't know much about history because of the written records? Ridiculous. Think Sven, think.

What do you think the entire school of Egyptology is built upon?

Written records, that's what. Of course there are other non-written artifacts which fill in details, but it's the written records on monuments, tablets, scrolls, etc. that are the real important part.