Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any comment W_Fortenberry?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 95 (43743)
06-23-2003 10:14 AM


If W_Fortenberry is lurking could he respond to this message.
W_F, in The BIble unearthed topic, which is now closed, you asked me to clarify a few questions for you.
I posted a considerable reply, (Post #66)which involved quite a few hours work. Can I take it for granted that my response was adequate and that you are happy to agree with my conclusions?
I realise that people can be very busy in their private lives and you may not have had time to reply. But it has been quite a few weeks since I replied to you, and I am interested to know if you have found any faults in my responses.
If you do not have time to answer all the points, a quick note to acknowledge that you have read the message and intend/do not intend to reply, would be appreciated.
Best Wishes
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!
{Added link for message 66 - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-23-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by truthlover, posted 06-24-2003 6:00 PM Brian has replied
 Message 4 by w_fortenberry, posted 06-25-2003 6:00 PM Brian has replied
 Message 22 by Culverin, posted 07-24-2003 3:05 PM Brian has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 2 of 95 (43984)
06-24-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
06-23-2003 10:14 AM


Brian,
Just so you know, I, for one, pay some attention to your posts. You don't owe us the research you do, but it is research I would never get to, and yet I benefit from it, because you post so much of it.
I have to admit, I sometimes wonder why you consider it worth it to spend hours preparing a post, but I enjoy the benefit of it.
So, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 06-23-2003 10:14 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 06-24-2003 7:25 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 3 of 95 (43989)
06-24-2003 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by truthlover
06-24-2003 6:00 PM


Hi TL and thanks for the post.
I am currently preparing a Master of Theology thesis by research at Glasgow University. A lot of the material I post here is from the research that I am doing for that. Most of the stuff I post here, not all, is basically material that I have read but decided to discard or modify greatly.
For example, using the impossibly long life-spans of some characters to cast doubt on the historical accuracy of the Bible isn't really required for a thesis of this level, no respected scholar would really argue that these lifespans are in fact literal.
So posting that on here isn't really that great a chore, it is just a case of remembering exactly where in my notes I have references to this and then either typing them out of pasting them into a post.
However, there are times when I have been asked something in here, say by Nuklhed, and I have taken time to go into the Uni library and check out a handful of books relevant to that question. This too isnt that great a chore as it could be of use in any further research that I do. Even if I do not use the material it all contributes to a better overall understanding of the topic , so it is all worthwhile.
I was a little disapppointed that W_F didnt respond, but it is no big deal, I understand that there could well be many much more important things going on in his life right now. I suppose there's also the fact that I could use a lot of the material again if I get involved in another discussion board, or in a private email debate.
Brian.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by truthlover, posted 06-24-2003 6:00 PM truthlover has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 4 of 95 (44203)
06-25-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
06-23-2003 10:14 AM


Apology
Hi Brian,
Forgive me for taking so long to respond. I actually am preparing a response to your post, but as you have speculated, I have been very busy elsewhere for the past several weeks. The material of your post was such that it demanded much more than a quick, simple reply, and I have tried to devote as much research to your statements as possible. However, due to a major move; several job changes; and a much needed computer upgrade, I was forced to suspend most of my internet activity. I have, though, been able to do some physical research. I was able to obtain a copy of Israel Finkelstein's book and am nearly finished with a somewhat lengthy rebuttal of the first two chapters. I was also able to study out your statements and will be posting my response shortly. I apologize for keeping you waiting and thank you for not assuming that I had given up.
Thanks,
W_Fortenberry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 06-23-2003 10:14 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 06-25-2003 6:19 PM w_fortenberry has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 95 (44207)
06-25-2003 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by w_fortenberry
06-25-2003 6:00 PM


Re: Apology
Hi W_F,
Very good to hear from you, I hope all is well with you.
Thankyou for replying, I fully understand how difficult it can be to get time to respond. I am very busy myself right now with the end of term administration tasks to do, but we break up on Friday and I have seven weeks vacation from school. It wont be much of a break as I still have Uni work to do.
But take as long as you need, and I hope we can continue this debate im maybe a little more amicable terms, I realise that I have been a little acerbic towards you and promise to lighten up in future posts. My apologies for that and hopefully we can learn a lot from each other.
Best Wishes
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by w_fortenberry, posted 06-25-2003 6:00 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-22-2003 3:49 PM Brian has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 6 of 95 (46911)
07-22-2003 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
06-25-2003 6:19 PM


Live Long And Prosper
Hi Brian,
In the thread "The Bible Unearthed - Exodus" you listed several themes which supposedly show that the Bible is unreliable. I will attempt to explain that the themes you cited are actually indicative of Biblical accuracy. Due to the length of the material being covered, I thought it best to discuss just one theme at a time.
(a) Live Long and Prosper!
quote:
The most explicit difficulty found in the Hebrew Bible is exposed without using any convoluted exegesis. It is fair to say that even the proverbial `man in the street' has major problems with accepting the life spans of certain biblical characters at face value...with the first man, Adam, living to the age of 930 (Gen. 5:5), Seth, Adam's son, lived to be 912 (Gen. 5:8), Jared 962 (Gen. 5:18), Noah 950 (Gen. 9:29)) and the longest lived person in the Bible, Methuselah, lived to the grand old age of 969 (Gen. 5:27).
To explain this, allow me to add a few other names to your list. Shem 600, his son Arphaxad 438, his son Salah 433, his son Eber 464, his son Peleg 239, his son Reu 239, his son Serug 230, his son Nahor 148, his son Terah 205, his son Abraham 175, his son Isaac 180.
As you can see there are two periods of drastic decreases to the human lifespan. The first being the degeneration from the 950 years of Noah to the 438 years of Arphaxand, and the second the degeneration from the 464 years of Eber to the 239 years of Peleg.
Now these two time periods should be immediately recognized by the Bible scholar as coinciding with the two worldwide catastrophic events mentioned in Genesis. First the flood is said to have occurred during the time of Noah and Shem. Secondly, the earth is said to have been divided during the days of Peleg. Such correlation of biblical claims certainly should not go unnoticed. It is also necessary to note that after Noah and Shem who lived both before and after the flood, the Bible never again attributes to any of its characters an age of over 464. Similarly no one is attributed a lifespan of more than 239 years after the days of Peleg.
Therefore we cannot simply say that the Bible attributes extraordinarily long life to many of its characters. Instead, we must qualify this statement by stating that the Bible attributes long life to those who lived before, during, or shortly after the occurrence of certain worldwide catastrophies. Stated in this manner, the long life spans listed in Scripture do not seem nearly as unnatural. It is no great stretch of the imagination to conclude that a worldwide flood is capable of destroying some part of creation that had previously guaranteed length of life. Indeed, it would seem to require a much greater stretch of the imagination to assume that such a catastrophe would not destroy many things that man had previously found to be beneficial. Thus the long life spans listed in the Bible are not indicative of its unreliability, but are fully consistent with its accounts of worldwide catastrophies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 06-25-2003 6:19 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2003 4:06 PM w_fortenberry has not replied
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 07-23-2003 12:24 AM w_fortenberry has not replied
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 07-23-2003 4:59 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 95 (46912)
07-22-2003 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by w_fortenberry
07-22-2003 3:49 PM


Re: Live Long And Prosper
The big questions are surely whether the two catastrophes you refer to ever happened and why they would affect lifespan.
To start with the division of the division f the Earth - it is far from clear tat that refers to a physical catastrophe at all. The best match in the Bible is the Babel myth which is not a geological catastrophe at all. And is there any physical evidence for such a catastrophe ? If not, why not ?
As for the Flood there is no evidence for a genuine worldwide flood at any time in the last 10,000 years. The biggest flood proposed as the basis of the myth is the flooding of the Black Sea - a smaller event, and even that is disputed.
As for the ages, even the age of 239 you quote as coming AFTER the Flood is highly implausible. While it is true that the maximum lifespan was not do greatly different even in ancient times, we have nothing to suggest that even that age is possible for a human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-22-2003 3:49 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 8 of 95 (46987)
07-23-2003 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by w_fortenberry
07-22-2003 3:49 PM


Re: Live Long And Prosper
Fortenberry writes:
quote:
It is no great stretch of the imagination to conclude that a worldwide flood is capable of destroying some part of creation that had previously guaranteed length of life. Indeed, it would seem to require a much greater stretch of the imagination to assume that such a catastrophe would not destroy many things that man had previously found to be beneficial.
What a deal!
God destroys the world because it is corrupt, and when he's accomplished that: Saved the righteous men, women, children and animals; Given them a fresh start in a new world ... Then, ... It's worse off than before!? Less beneficial!? Sooner fatal!? But wait, there is one positive outcome isn't there? God has learned a lesson ...
"Is that barbecue I smell" - "I've got to stop cursing these people." - "Humans will be humans." - "I won't do the flood thing again." - "Really." - "You guys are the greatest." - "Really now." - "Here's the deal." - "Seriously." - "Look at the rainbow." Genesis 8:21-9:18 dbrv
quote:
Thus the long life spans listed in the Bible are not indicative of its unreliability, ...
I agree but for different reasons.
I find it interesting that the hundreds of pages these people invested in moral lessons regarding the miraculous aspects of their history contain absolutely no comment regarding these lifespans! People today are buzzing with excitement about it but the biblical authors don't even seem to notice. No reiteration. No moralization. No object lesson. No comment at all. You would think that at least one of the two dozen authors would have penned a short verse exclaiming ...
"Gee! These guys lived ten times longer than we do!"
But NOTHING. NOT A WORD.
WHY?
I believe doctrbill has offered an efficient answer to this question:
http://www.sun-day-school.us/many_moons.htm
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-22-2003 3:49 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2003 5:38 AM doctrbill has not replied
 Message 25 by Culverin, posted 07-28-2003 10:10 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 9 of 95 (47000)
07-23-2003 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by w_fortenberry
07-22-2003 3:49 PM


Re: Live Long And Prosper
HI W_Fortenberry
Good to hear from you again.
The claim I made, and I stick by, is that in regard to using the Bible as a source for reconstructing the 'historical' origins of Ancient Israel, then historians have problems with the reliability of the Bible as an accurate source.
I listed several reasons, and there is probably a few more that casts doubt on its reliability, the concept of a Golden Age for example.
But anyway, in regard to the exceedingly long lifespans the actual reasons given for these life spans really has nothing to do with whether these people actually did live for these lengths of time.
As the investigation into the origins of ancient Israel is an historical pursuit, historians need reliable sources as they attempt to reconstruct what actually happened.
Now the Hebrew Bible is only one source that is used for reconstructing Israel's origins, and if a historian wants to use it as a source, then its reliability as an accurate source for reconstructing history has to be demonstrated.
If a historian decided to use the Hebrew Bible as a source then in his thesis he needs to demonstrate that the source has been proven to be reliable. Now if he is claiming that his source says that people could live to be almost a thousand years old then he has to show that it is actually possible.
You cannot say that it is in the Bible therefore it is true and this is your evidence, you cannot use a source as proof that the source is accurate, so is there any external support for this claim.
A historian today would look at the claim of these life spans and the research whether this is possible. For example, he may ask himself what is the longest that anyone has lived that can be verified from various independant sources. Nowadays it is very unusual to find anyone who has lived beyond 120 years, this would place some doubt in the investigators mind because the Bible is claiming that people lived over seven times longer than any person that we know of.
The claim that someone lived to 969 years of age has to be shown to be possible, saying that it is in a book is not proof that anyone can live that long. Regardless of what reasons are given, a flood or anything else, it has to be shown that it is possible for a human to live that long. You will find that there is no evidence at all of anyone living for that length of time, you can say 'well it says so in the Bible so thats evidence', but it isn't, this is only evidence of someone's belief.
I think we actually be at cross purposes regarding this claim. I am not questioning the internal harmony of the Bible here, I am questioning whether or not the accounts of alleged historical events are actually accurate or not. The Bible claims that at a certain time in history people could live to be nearly a thousand years old, we know that humans today cannot live for anything near that length of time, and it has not been demostrated that in the past people lived for these fantastically long periods of time.
In fact, skeletal remains from many near sites over a long period of time all over the near east, show that humans would be very lucky to live to be 50 years old nevermind 969.
This evidence, placed alongside the Bible claims, means that many historians try to reinterpret the verses that claim long life spans. I really do not think that a serious historian would entertain the possibility that humans could, at one time. live to be such a great age, it goes against everything that we know of from archaeology and science.
Of course, this doesnt mean that they couldn't live that long, but it simply hasn't been shown to be possible. So until it is demonstrated that it was possible, then this is just one reason why the Bible is no longer taken as the reliable historical source that it once was.
Remember, I am not questioning the internal harmony of the Bible here, this is not what is meant by 'reliable' in this context. What I am questioning is whether the historical claims made by the Bible are reliable or not, and can the Bible be depended on for reconstructing an accurate picture of the past. I feel that any source which is happy to include these fantastic claims, may not be that reliable, and we also have the possbility that these life spans could be interpreted to be closer to an acceptable time.
I will admit that these fantastic lifespans by themselves do not make the Bible unreliable as a historical source, there are many more solid reasons why this is the case, but it does plant that seed of doubt which should alert the investigator that perhaps the authors we not really that interested in recording accurate history, there may be other reasons why the biblical authors recorded these stories.
Do you have any evidence from outside of the Bible that proves that around 6000 years ago it was possible for people to live for almost a thousand years?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-22-2003 3:49 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 10 of 95 (47006)
07-23-2003 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by doctrbill
07-23-2003 12:24 AM


Re: Live Long And Prosper
doctrbill writes:
quote:
I believe doctrbill has offered an efficient answer to this question:
http://www.sun-day-school.us/many_moons.htm
Specifically, this states that when the Bible says "year," it really means "month."
There's a problem with this...in the same geneologies where these people are described as living for hundreds upon hundreds of years, they are also listed as having children.
If we take the ages to be months instead of years, these people were fathering children when they were 8 years old. While this might be acceptable when it comes to Adam, who was seemingly created as an adult, it doesn't make any sense when it comes to any of the others. For example Cainan, great-grandson of Adam, fathered his first child, Mahalaleel, when he was 70:
Genesis 5:12: And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
Now, if "years" really means months, then Cainan was only 5 when he did this. Note that the next verse says that Cainan lived an incredibly long time:
Genesis 5:13: And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
This makes him 910 when he died. Again, if "years" are really months, this is fine since this would put him in his 70s but if so, his parents are guilty of heinous abuse of their child not to mention the biological miracle of being potent at that age.
But wait...later on we hear of the generations of Shem, son of Noah. These people, too, are living incredibly long lives. For example, Salah, grandson of Shem, lived to be 433. But, he had a son when he was only 30. If "years" really means months, he died when he was 35 and had a child when he was only 2.
Somehow, I don't think the claim of it being months instead of years can be claimed as the real interpretation.
Instead, it's just another incredible, mythological trait.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 07-23-2003 12:24 AM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 07-23-2003 6:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 11 of 95 (47009)
07-23-2003 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rrhain
07-23-2003 5:38 AM


Re: Live Long And Prosper
Hi Rrhain,
In doctrbill's defence, I am sure he said elsewhere that in the 'years as months' scenario, that we shouldnt start counting until the person has reached puberty, or something along those lines. I think that doctrbill would have noticed the problem that you pointed out.
I agree that with your conclusion that thse ages are simply a mythological trait. This might have simply been a common motif at the time these stories were made up. For example, there are lists of Babylonian Kings that claim some kings lived as long as 24 000 years. Anyone who takes these lifespans literally has a very difficult task in proving them possible. As I said in the previous post, it isnt a case of saying that a book says this happened, you need to prove that the proposition is possible, and by all the knowledge that we have it simply isnt.
Perhaps there is evidence of people living to these extraordinary ages, but it has never been demonstrated to be so, and all the evidence from archaeology and science points undeniably to much shorter lifspans.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2003 5:38 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 12 of 95 (47011)
07-23-2003 6:20 AM


Hi Rraihn,
This is from Doctrbill's website: http://www.sun-day-school.us/many_moons.htm
Phenomenal ages are listed for the Hebrew ancestors (Genesis 5). Adam is said to have lived 930 years. Methuselah - 969 years! If we merely divide thesse numbers by 12.38 and expect that to give us their ages in years, we discover a problem. When applied to all ancestors in the list it suggests that some were having children before they were out of diapers!
It is probable that these people figured the age of manhood at the onset of puberty. There is biblical evidence that boys became members of society at thirteen years of age (Genesis 17:18,25; 2 Kings 22:1) - roughly 160 cycles of the moon. Hebrew culture continues that custom with a ceremony called barmitzva.
Brian.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2003 7:07 AM Brian has replied
 Message 17 by doctrbill, posted 07-23-2003 2:22 PM Brian has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 13 of 95 (47018)
07-23-2003 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brian
07-23-2003 6:20 AM


Brian Johnston quotes from doctrbill's web site in response to me.
The thing is, there is nothing in the biblical text that supports this claim. And the covenant is with Abraham...over a thousand years later. We shouldn't apply the covenant of Abraham to Adam or Noah or anybody who came before.
As for 2 Kings 22:1, it doesn't really apply:
2 Kings 22:1: Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath.
This seems to indicate that later writers understood the difference between years and months and that things could happen when you were very young. Becoming king when you're young isn't such a bizarre thing in an inherited system...the current ruler dies and the heir takes over.
And notice, Josiah becomes king when he's 8...not 13.
Let's not forget that Abraham is shocked to find that he's going to have a son when he's 100...and yet the men of generations before were having children when they were well over 100. Jarod was 162 when he had his first child, Enoch. Methuselah was 187 when he had Lamech. Lamech was 182 when he had Noah and Noah was 500 when he had his three sons. Why such a worry?
The attempt to say that the Bible really meant month when it said year doesn't wash.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 07-23-2003 6:20 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Brian, posted 07-23-2003 7:37 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 15 by doctrbill, posted 07-23-2003 11:42 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 14 of 95 (47020)
07-23-2003 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rrhain
07-23-2003 7:07 AM


Hi,
I agree that it doesn't wash, however, I was only pointing out that Doctrbill had dealt with the problem of very young children becoming fathers. He hadnt overlooked this error. That his solution, in my opinion and yours, isn't convincing wasnt what I was trying to get at.
Another problem that literalists need to solve regarding the ages as well, is that some early Bible versions disagree on some chronological data.
For example, the Masoretic text has Adam as 130 when he 'begat' for the first time, the Samaritan Penteteuch agrees, but the Septuagint claims that Adam was 230.
Also, the MT has Methuselah dying at 969, the SP agrees, but the LXX says 720. Eber is a total disaster, all three give different ages, the MT says 464, the SP says 504 and the LXX says 404!
True, they all claim extraordinary lifespans, but which one is the accurate one. There are literally hundreds of chronological discrepencies between different Bible versions, this coupled with the contradictions between the Bible chronologies and archaeological data proves that most, if not all, bible chronologies are artificial.
Cheers!
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2003 7:07 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by doctrbill, posted 07-23-2003 11:56 AM Brian has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 15 of 95 (47067)
07-23-2003 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rrhain
07-23-2003 7:07 AM


Rrhain:
quote:
The thing is, there is nothing in the biblical text that supports this claim.
The evidenc is sparse but not nonexistent.
quote:
And the covenant is with Abraham...over a thousand years later. We shouldn't apply the covenant of Abraham to Adam or Noah or anybody who came before.
I agree that we shouldn't apply the covenant to previous generations but the covenant is irrelevant here. The custom of recognizing manhood at age thirteen precedes the covenant. Ishmael is thirteen when Abram proposes to make him heir of the estate. Genesis 17:18,25.
quote:
As for 2 Kings 22:1, it doesn't really apply:
You're right about that. I am taking steps to upgrade that page. I recently found this tidbit which I had long imagined to be out there somewhere.
quote:
Bar Mitzva means "son of the commandment". This phrase applies to every Jewish male on becoming thirteen years old. In Torah law this is when adult responsibility begins. From this time and for the rest of his life, he is and remains Bar Mitzva, "son of the commandment", subject to all the laws of the Torah as they apply to men.
...
In the written Torah -- the Hebrew Bible -- the earliest age at which someone is called Ish, "a man", is thirteen. Just a moment...
At age thirteen, one can legally inherit his fathers estate. The lineage of Genesis 5 is the line of inheritance.
quote:
... later writers understood the difference between years and months
Yes, they did.
quote:
Abraham is shocked to find that he's going to have a son when he's 100...and yet the men of generations before were having children when they were well over 100.
Which suggests to me that the calendar revolution had already occured.
quote:
The attempt to say that the Bible really meant month when it said year doesn't wash.
I would agree, if that were the case. But it's not. The Bible doesn't use those words.
From the webpage:
quote:
... the Hebrew word shanah*, rendered year in Genesis 5, is elsewhere translated - change, repeat, again, and return. In context it variously indicates: a change in the law; a change in behavior; and even a change of clothing! ... At any rate, it simply means cycle and may be applied to cycles of the moon or the sun. It is not limited the way we limit our word year.
In an earlier post on this thread I pointed out the fact that no biblical author seems to be impressed by these long lifespans. If they were indeed as long as 969 years, you'd think someone would have at least bragged about it.
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2003 7:07 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2003 2:03 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 52 by chinger, posted 08-15-2003 8:58 PM doctrbill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024