Any comment W_Fortenberry?

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.htmdb------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

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?

Brian Johnston:

quote:

---

I was only pointing out that Doctrbill had dealt with the problem of very young children becoming fathers. He hadnt overlooked this error.

---

Thanks Brian.There are plenty of ways to discredit the Bible but this is not one of them. Evolution of the calendar is an extremely complicated subject which deserves it's own website, and there are many books written on the subject. There were centuries, even millenia, during which various cultures maintained unique calendars. It is a fascinating subject if one enjoys a challenging puzzle.

quote:

---

Another problem that literalists need to solve regarding the ages as well, is that some early Bible versions disagree on some chronological data.

---

Thanks again. I had long ago noted such discrepancies between Hebrew and Greek versions of the Book of Revelation but was unaware of the stats you brought. Can you point me to the source of these figures? Do you actually own copies of the books you cite?

quote:

---

most, if not all, bible chronologies are artificial.

---

I am not conversant enough on the subject to deny this, but I suspect that the above mentioned chaos of calendrical systems could explain some of the discrepancies. Then again, some of the old numbering systems are extremely complicated as well and more than a few have had to be revised as additional evidence became available.Again. I believe there are better targets for the purpose of discrediting the biblical text. This one is pretty fuzzy in my sights.db------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This is to inform you that pertinent revision and additional evidence have been posted to this page as a result of our recent discussion here. It is still a quick read and I think you will find the case considerably enhanced.http://www.sun-day-school.us/many_moons.htmIt is not possible for me to anticipate every objection which may be fielded against my hypotheses. I value your opinions and critiques. I need them in order to judge the effectiveness of my presentations.Thank you all for your participation.db------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

Thank you for the references and additional info. Brian.

quote:

---

I think most people are really trying to discover how and why the Bible was written and that perhaps we need to change our perception of the text.

---

I believe that describes my motivation pretty well.On the one hand, I had it drilled into me. On the other hand, I was in love with it. Well, still am, sort of. Now, however, it's more like proving to myself that its "bogy man" and its "Lord" are objectifiable; literary examples of the eternal cast of characters found in politics and religion. Even so, reading it can give me both: nightmares and inspiration. Bible study is one of the few intellectual pursuits in which I can confess a modicum of expertise.------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

I don't understand why you are going on about circumcision.

• Boys are circumcised on the eighth day of life, according to Jewish law.
• Boys become "men" at age thirteen, according to Jewish Law (barmitzva).
• Circumcision is not barmitzva.

It seems you haven't read the short page on this subject. It was recently edited to include more evidence, and improve readability.Please read the whole thing: 900 y/o man?db------------------
Does anyone graduate Sunday School?

This is a Pauline doctrine. Jesus himself did not extend his gospel to the "Goiim." I know St. Paul says Jesus told him to do it "in a vision." Pish Posh! You deliver unwanted and unwarranted "messages" while hiding behind "the Bible says," as if that somehow gives you, the "messenger," diplomatic immunity.Shame on you Culverin.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

Which Jesus, apparenly facetiously, called the "law" of the scribes and Pharisees.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

The Living Bible is even clearer: "This is your Coronation Day."db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

Greetings Chinger, and welcome aboard. Correctamundo! Glad someone noticed.My calculation holds the 'birth' of Adam to be year zero then adds his age at the birth of Seth {according to the formula (n/12.38 + 13)}, repeating the process with each ancestor up to the birth of Abram. The cumulative ages are then added. The traditional number of years given from Adam to the birth of Abram is 1,946 (assuming I have added correctly), while the adjusted years total 404.2. Estimates of Abram’s period of activity range from about 2050 to about 1850 BC. If we go with the earlier date, think of it as Abrams birthdate and count backward, utilizing our adjusted years, then creation occurs around 2450 BC. If we choose the later date, then creation occurs about 2250 BC; Just subtract 267 years from these figures and you get a date for the flood. But there are problems with that. See below. For reasons which will become immediately apparent, let's choose an intermediate date for the birth of Abram at circa 1950 BC. Thus, Adam appears in Mesopotamia circa 2350, well after the invention of writing and about the same time a man calling himself "Sargon" (son o'god) conquers a region which the Bible calls *Eden.* The flood comes approximately 250 years later (give or take a decade) about the same time Ur re-takes the territory Sargon had seized from them. Could a devastating flood have given them such an opportunity?There are Mesopotamian writings which refer to what was doubtless the same flood as Noah’s. But, by both Sumerian and Hebrew accounts, it would seem that flood occurred much earlier. Woolley's dig at Ur discovered evidence of a great flood which he dated to 3500 BC. One of his colleagues later dated it to around 3700 BC. I have discovered no claim to the contrary. It seems that neither my calculation nor that of Bishop Usher fits this particular evidence.If we assume creation at 4000 BC and work forward, using the adjusted years, then the flood occurs in 3736 BC. A nice fit for the evidence, but it puts the story of Abram way too early and it throws off the entire timeline of the Bible.Don't ask me how I justify all this. I don't. And don't blame me if there are more questions now than there were before. The myth was already a mess before I took it apart.db {edited for arithmetic}[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-18-2003]

Hi Percy,In case you haven't noticed, I replied to chinger's post and may have answered your questions. See my post #54.db

Hello again Percy,Brian's right. My intent was to assume that Bishop Ussher's date is correct and then, using the adjusted genealogy, to calculate the date of Noah's Flood. When one does this the timing fits Woolley's evidence of a Great Mesopotamian Flood circa 3700 BC. The purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate that adjusting for the lunar calendar does not, in itself, resolve the problematic mysteries of the myth.db

Hi fortenberry,
I just now noticed your post in my index. Guess I'll have to change my preferences and have responses emailed to me. Time is short this morning so I may not have time answer to your objection before going off to work. Will try to get back to you before the day is over. Thank you for your reply.db

That's not exactly a quote. My assertion is that the when the formula is applied to the genealogy of Genesis chapter five, it results in normal lifespans. Not quite. Your statement could be misleading. The quote from Job supports the theory, yes. But it is not primary evidence. a) The age of Job is not given. The number of 'years' he lives afterward, is given.b) I do not consider that to be a failure. Not even an oversight. But I will look at it with you all the same. There are two problems with your statement.1) You forgot to add 13 to the (n/12.38). The age given is 140 years. Divide this by 12.38 and the result is 11.3; add 13 and the result is 24.3.2) Job's age at the time of the test is not given. Some men start their family at an early age. The youngest fathers in the Genesis 5 chronology were about fifteen and one half years of age. If this were true of Job's family then he could be a grandfather at thirty and a great grandfather at forty five. So, Job may have been able to produce four generations in less than half a century.I know, I know, "But his children were all killed." And "he couldn't have produced four more generations in only 24.3 years." I have re-read that part. I notice that nothing is said of his children's children; his grand children. And considering his legendary wealth, it would not be unrealistic to assume that he was at or near middle age when the tragedies struck. And it is not unrealistic to assume that his grandchildren were not present at a party where their parents were consuming alcholic beverages. Of course he couldn't produce four generations in 11 years, but he could have "seen" four generations in 24.3 years. Much as you might wish I had ... I did not derive my formula from that text in Job. Furthermore, the Job text we are now considering does not offer a serious challenge to the theory.There is a lot left unsaid in the book of Job. The prologue of the book is small and the epilogue is miniscule. These exist only to introduce and cap a long epic poem about the meaning of life, the universe and everything (thank you Douglas Adams). The portion dealing with family matters forms a miniscule portion of the prologue and even less of the epilogue.The number of the original children is not given and none of them are named. Only Job's three daughters, presumably fathered after his ordeal, are named; none of his seven sons are named (something highly unusual in biblical literature). For this (evidence of matrilineal society) and other reasons, many scholars believe that Job was "borrowed" from Canaanite literature and adapted to the Hebrew palate.We do not know how many of Job's grandchildren or great grandchildren were alive while he raised his ten new kids. And 24.3 years is plenty of time for a man to have ten new kids, and "see" four generations of offspring.There is another factor which may come into play here: evolution of the calendar itself. It was a tumultuous and controversial subject in ancient times and the conflict continues to this day. It is much too complex to discuss here (I just don't want to do it) but there are plentiful materials online and in the library. {there is evidence of the conflict in the Bible itself} I cannot offer you a simple solution to every challenge which may be presented to my theory, but so far I have seen no substantive threat to its validity.Sometimes we have to change our minds to accomodate the facts of life.db------------------
http://www.sun-day-school.us

Right you are!My mistake. Even less of a chance to father four more generations, but adequate time to father ten children nonetheless, and see the great grandchildren of his original family.I am sure there are more problematic cases with which you could challenge my theory. (Not that I am particularly interested in dealing with them, you understand.) ------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin