Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 06-03-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

There are a couple methods out there to treat the genealogies. Ussher took the genealogies to be physical father-son relationships. Others treat the genealogies as other than physical father-son relationships allowing for gaps in generations between the names listed. The latter method can get up to 15,000 years more or less.

It is certainly possible that a given relationship where one individual is listed as "father of" or "son of" another individual is not a single generation. We know that Matthew used this literary device to omit the names of wicked kings from the genealogy of Christ. We also know that Levi is called the "son of Abraham". If the text merely says, "Tom begat Joe, Joe begat Bob, and Bob begat Sam," we do not know whether Tom, Joe, Bob, and Sam represent four generations or represent four notable leaders in patrilineal descent stretching over twenty or thirty generations.

However, Ussher didn't use the "general" genealogies in constructing his timeline. He used the ones that say, "Tom was 45 years old when he begat Joe. Joe was 22 years old when he begat Bob. Bob was 50 years old when he begat Sam." These genealogies provide specific dating from one person to the next, so we know how long it took. This type of record is given from Adam to Jacob, and the rest of the dates accumulate from there. So unless the genealogies are just flat wrong, then you cannot fit more than 3990-4010 years between Adam and Christ.

That's one way to look at it. Not everyone thinks it has to be a father-son relationship even when the years are specified.

rhutchin · 06-03-2011, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. That's a good point. I'll go with Adam being smart enough to create the first alphabet and spell words.

Ah, but remember? Adam also has to invent writing, and writing utensils, and the physical medium that can retain the writings for the multiple centuries until Moses can get a hold of them. And then Adam has to bequeath all that learning to Cain and Abel, so that they can record their final conversation for posterity's sake. And then the knowledge has to be handed down to Seth, and his son, and his son's son, and so on down through the generations.

Yep, but Adam lived a long time and was the Leonardo da Vinci of his time but smarter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Here's a weird example. In Genesis 5, we read that a man named Kenan (one of several children of Enosh) became the father of Mahalel, along with other sons and daughters. So per your Tablet Theory, Kenan was the only one among his brothers and sisters who was entrusted with this knowledge of literacy.

Why couldn't they all be literate? What's the tablet theory have to do with it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

There are a couple methods out there to treat the genealogies. Ussher took the genealogies to be physical father-son relationships. Others treat the genealogies as other than physical father-son relationships allowing for gaps in generations between the names listed. The latter method can get up to 15,000 years more or less.

What is the reason that you and others insert gaps into the genealogies? There is no indication in Genesis that there should be gaps. What is it that's making you conclude that the genealogies are missing anything? Why not, as Biblical inerrantists continually tell me, just accept the Bible for exactly what it says?

It all starts with this:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Genesis 7:11)

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. (Genesis 8:13)

And someone asked the question, What would people use as a calendar back in the BC times?

So, how would you devise a calendar to be used back then?

Gullwind · 06-03-2011, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That's one way to look at it. Not everyone thinks it has to be a father-son relationship even when the years are specified.

Doesn't matter what the relationships are. The point is that the specific number of years are given between the events.

If Whoosiewhatsit is X years old when he begets Framistat, and Framistat is Y years old when he begets Tinkledorf, then there are only X + Y years between Whoosiwhatsit's birth and Tinkledorf's, no matter how many generations are actually between then.

Lunawalk · 06-03-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunawalk

so what the text uses the phrase
according to the word of the LORD Anybody could wrote it. if I say JFk is still alive according to the word of the LORD. Does that mean it true? is it that easy to prove a point.

Again the text does not speak of Moses raised to life.

Within the context of what we have, we get the results I have described. No one says you gotta believe it.

I don't believe it because there is no evidence of moses being raised to life. I ask again if I say JFK is still alive according to the word of the LORD. is that statement true if not why not?

Saramago · 06-03-2011, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. That's a good point. I'll go with Adam being smart enough to create the first alphabet and spell words.

Ah, but remember? Adam also has to invent writing, and writing utensils, and the physical medium that can retain the writings for the multiple centuries until Moses can get a hold of them. And then Adam has to bequeath all that learning to Cain and Abel, so that they can record their final conversation for posterity's sake. And then the knowledge has to be handed down to Seth, and his son, and his son's son, and so on down through the generations.

Yep, but Adam lived a long time and was the Leonardo da Vinci of his time but smarter.

:hysterical:

I'm going to guess that you have no idea how ridiculous that is (and how funny, for a different reason).

Kapyong · 06-04-2011, 12:23 AM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It is all Wellhausen's personal view and hypothetical.

The famous and respected Wellhausen's 'view' was a dominant view for much of the 20th century - and his name is now linked with it.

But rhutchin can dismiss this dominant scholarly argument as merely "a personal view" and merely "hypothetical"; while he then offers this powerful answer :

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Probably because Moses did not physically write anything. He assigned that task to his scribe/secretary/historian whose job it was to record all that happened and all that Moses told him. It was just the writing style of the day.

Probably?
So it's hypothetical then?

And no evidence is give - so it's just the personal view of a unknown true-believer web-poster.

Kapyong

rhutchin · 06-05-2011, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Probably because Moses did not physically write anything. He assigned that task to his scribe/secretary/historian whose job it was to record all that happened and all that Moses told him. It was just the writing style of the day.

Probably?
So it's hypothetical then?

And no evidence is give - so it's just the personal view of a unknown true-believer web-poster.

Yep. No one really knows. On either side of the issue.

rhutchin · 06-05-2011, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saramago

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yep, but Adam lived a long time and was the Leonardo da Vinci of his time but smarter.

:hysterical:

I'm going to guess that you have no idea how ridiculous that is (and how funny, for a different reason).

So, what makes it ridiculous or funny, for whatever reason?

rhutchin · 06-05-2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunawalk

I don't believe it because there is no evidence of moses being raised to life.

What's the "Moses being raised to life" thing? The Bible says no such thing (unless you are referring to the general resurrection of the elect when Christ returns to judge the world).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunawalk

I ask again if I say JFK is still alive according to the word of the LORD. is that statement true if not why not?

All it means is that you claim that JFK was among the elect saved by God. That could be true but would not necessarily be true.

rhutchin · 06-05-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That's one way to look at it. Not everyone thinks it has to be a father-son relationship even when the years are specified.

Doesn't matter what the relationships are. The point is that the specific number of years are given between the events.

If Whoosiewhatsit is X years old when he begets Framistat, and Framistat is Y years old when he begets Tinkledorf, then there are only X + Y years between Whoosiwhatsit's birth and Tinkledorf's, no matter how many generations are actually between then.

The Hebrew text does not require this. The term, "begat," establishes lineage but not necessarily a physical father-son relationship. To establish the father-son relationship, the writer would say, as in Genesis 5;3, "[Adam] begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." Otherwise, a physical father-son relationship cannot be assumed.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.