rob117

Whoops! My bad. But my point was that the texts were altered a lot.

bfniii

since the biblical errors thread is now closed, i didn't get to answer one of jack's posts on this topic.





for those of you not familiar with jack's posts or the other thread, this is typical fishbowl thinking by jack. there are geniune biblical scholars who derive a different interpretation of the geneaologies than jack. that does not make them mistaken. notice how jack just declares that they are mistaken without bothering to show how his interpretations are the only ones that can possibly be correct.



i directly quoted the source. you can look it up if you like.



great example of ad hominem. attack the source so you don't have to bother with the actual information. it's much easier.



you are correct that there are people on both sides of the fence.



some people consider this as evidence that there actually was a flood.



correct. there is more than one local flood that could have been the one the bible referred to.



if you don't understand them.



incorrect. i don't understand why you feel so threatened that people have different ideas than yours. there are people who have studied the geneaologies much more than you have who don't find them a "mess" and don't try to find a date for the flood. why does that bother you so much?

Johnny Skeptic

The best evidence shows that there was not a global flood, but if there was, and if the Institute for Creation Research is correct that the earth was created about 4,000 years ago, using the Bible's chronology from Adam through Noah, it can be calculated that the flood occurred in 2344 B.C.

The story of the global flood, along with many other Bible stories, is a fanciful, oncorroborated myth whose motive is patently absurd, precluding any reasonable possibility of being truthful. God wanted rid of all the bad people? Now please.

funinspace

Bfnii, maybe you could provide some insight into what interpretation is needed for such passages as below:

5:32 After Noah was five hundred years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11:10 This is the account of Shem.
Shem was one hundred years old when he became the father of Arphaxad, two years after the flood. 11:11 And after becoming the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years and had other sons and daughters.
(2 years After Flood (AF) Arphaxad born)
11:12 When Arphaxad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah. 11:13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters.
(2 + 35 = 37 AF)
11:14 When Shelah had lived thirty years, he became the father of Eber. 11:15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters.
(37+30=67AF)
11:16 When Eber had lived thirty-four years, he became the father of Peleg. 11:17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived four hundred and thirty years and had other sons and daughters.
(67+34=101AF)
11:18 When Peleg had lived thirty years, he became the father of Reu. 11:19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived two hundred and nine years and had other sons and daughters.
(101+30=131AF)
11:20 When Reu had lived thirty-two years, he became the father of Serug. 11:21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived two hundred and seven years and had other sons and daughters.
(131+32=163AF)
11:22 When Serug had lived thirty years, he became the father of Nahor. 11:23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived two hundred years and had other sons and daughters.
(163+30=193AF)
11:24 When Nahor had lived twenty-nine years, he became the father of Terah. 11:25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years and had other sons and daughters.
(193+29=222AF)
11:26 When Terah had lived seventy years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
(222+70=292AF)
21:5 (Now Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.)
(292+100=392AF)
25:26 When his brother came out with his hand clutching Esau's heel, they named him Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when they were born.
(392+60=452AF)
47:9 Jacob said to Pharaoh, "All the years of my travels are one hundred and thirty. All the years of my life have been few and painful; the years of my travels are not as long as those of my ancestors." 47:10 Then Jacob blessed Pharaoh and went out from his presence.
(452+130=582AF)
47:28 Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years; the years45 of Jacob's life were one hundred and forty-seven in all
Ex 12:40 Now the length of time the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred thirty years.
(582+430=1012AF)

This gives us the grand total of time from the famous flood to the exodus from Egypt being 1012 years. Then they had 40 years of wandering before beginning the invasion of Canaan. Once one chooses a century that the invasion of Canaan occurred, then the Deluge seams to have been 1012 before that.

I’m kind of confused as to what interpreting is required. If such simple and clear passages require interpretation, what is one to think of the Gospel of John, or Issaiah, or Revelations? If one allows for “interpreting” such verses to not mean what they simply say, then how could one argue against “interpreting” John to the point of saying universalism or even the Gnostic view of Jesus never being a physical presence are reasonable points of view?

Johnny Skeptic

I made an error in my previous post, which was as follows:

Instead of "4,000 years ago," I should have said 4,000 B.C.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:

I see you've finally decided to post on the thread I specifically set up for this purpose nine months ago.

However, it appears that either you still haven't read it, or you still haven't decided to address its contents.

When you have done so, I will respond.

Jack the Bodiless

...By the way:
Why do you expect us to regard the "Believer's Study Bible" as a reputable source?

It's primarily the work of W. A. Criswell, a fundamentalist who was apparently largely responsible for the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention (and who received his PhD from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: I expect the "doctoral level" qualifications of the others are of similar provenance). From his obituary:
THIS is the source that you're trying to browbeat me with?

...And some of your responses indicate that you're still toying with the idea of a local flood. What do you think crusty old Criswell would have to say about that?

Apparently the book also "defends a literal creation in 6 days" (according to its Amazon reviews). So you'd better not try slipping any "day-age" malarkey past us either!

bfniii

you have correctly reproduced a modern english translation of the bible. what you have not done is to establish the author's original intent of the ancient hebrew words used. it is possible that the word used for father in ancient hebrew could mean ancestor. if that is the case, the passage above could be rendered in such a way that noah became the ancestor of a family that eventually included shem, ham and japheth. i'm not saying that is the case with this specific example. i'm saying we don't know the original interpretation. therefore, we don't have enough information to unequivocably state the author's intention. hebrew genealogies often served a specific purpose other than chronological timelines. the genealogies of Jesus differed because the authors were emphasizing different aspects of His lineage. there's no reason to think this couldn't be the case with other biblical genealogies.



i don't think the issue is "interpretation". i think the issue is the realization of the flexibility of the hebrew words in question.

funinspace

That I would generally agree with, there is allot we don't know with certainty. I was making some assumptions based on a few other recent posts of yours. Maybe I should step back and ask a more basic question. So is it God-breathed? Just God-inspired, but written by fallible humans? Or?

So with such flexibility, as an example: is considering the Book of Daniel to be written in the 3rd century BC, reflecting the issues of their time with the Alexandrian Empire, a reasonable realization? Vice saying it was written in the Babylonian Captivity, and did predict all sorts of things.

Johnny Skeptic

And we don't have enough information to unequivocably state that the flood occurred, that there were plagues in Egypt, that the Red Sea parted, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that he was born of a virgin, that his shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind, that he was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, how Judas died, and that God is perfect, right?