1 Kings 6:1 can we harmonise it with other biblical info?

AbE: Fixed formatting error, added indent blocks and bulleted list formatting (AdminBen)This message has been edited by AdminBen, Friday, 2005/09/30 03:10 PMThis message has been edited by Brian, 10-13-2005 02:24 AM

Promoted here from the "Proposed New Topics" forum.Please note that we're in the "Bible Study" forum; the focus here is on trying to determine the internal validity of the Bible.

How is it you question the number of years given by a writer who lived at the time and would have every motivation to know the exact numbering of the years? You could be making all kinds of mistakes, not understanding the points of reference the writer had in mind, or not taking into account unmentioned overlaps or whatnot.Matthew Henry says: I'm sorry I don't have the patience to work this through with you. Just wanted to give this bit of info. Whatever number you come up with, I'll still trust the Bible's number instead.

quote:

---

This obviously brings us to a running total of 540 years....Is it possible to harmonise the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 with other information contained in the Hebrew Bible?

---

Clearly a case of rounding. Maybe the Hebrews had a base-480 number system. Okay. I'll be quiet now.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-13-2005 02:24 AM

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-13-2005 02:25 AM

The maths is right if we assume there are no gaps between the judges. However the Bible clearly indicates there are sometimes massive gaps between the judges. Example: After Abdon died there was a period of 40 years of oppresion under the Philistines before Samson fights them off, and becomes a judge for 20 years.That right there adds 40 years to Henry's sum of 480 which pretyy much ruins his maths. Perhaps I am not following the argument, but it seems that the numbers don't add up...I've looked through the documents myself, and the figures Brian presents certainly look right.Of course, if you don't have the patience to explain to me where I'm looking at this wrong I can deal with that...but I would like someone to explain how its supposed to add up.

Look, Modulous, if the Bible says that40 + 17 + 299 + 40 + 40 + 40 + 4 + another 40 = 480,then, by god, it must be true. We don't need your secular humanist mathematics to confuse faithful.

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-13-2005 02:25 AM

I've always been a bit suspicious of all those forties. Did their Constitiution limit them to forty-year terms, or what? Smacks more of numerology than history to me.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

quote:

---

Did their Constitiution limit them to forty-year terms, or what?

---

And what if they died before their 40 year reign was up? Tim Burton's The Corpse King?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Indeed, Brian nicely points this out: Looking around it seems that forty is numerologically associated in Hebrew with change/transition. I'm not sure if that is based on the Bible, or if that is reflected in the Bible. I suspect the latter, but I don't know for sure.

I'm content with the possibility that some of the numbers are highly rounded off, that their symbolic value is of more interest to the writers than their actual numerical value, or that there was overlapping that is not mentioned, deliverers being called during the time of oppression, or something like that, but it's not something I've studied, so you are right, I should just stay out of it.{Edit: Thanks to a needed correction from Herepton I withdraw the above statements. The Bible is inerrant whether I understand this particular issue or not.}However, I found this interpretation of the discrepancy, which is interesting. He says that the actual count minus the years Israel was oppressed = 480, and that subtracting the years of oppression has the theological meaning that Israel wasn't really Israel during those years.Page not found – The Arthur C. Custance CentreThis message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 07:57 PM

No Brian !We have been over this many times have you forgot ? You may certainly assert (as you've done) but this is entirely unsupported. How would the author know when the centre of this history would be ? Are you suggesting a post exilic authorship of 1Kings ? If so, what is your evidence ?Internal synchronisms within the O.T. corroborate the 480 year figure. 13th century minimalists/Brian cannot have it both ways, that is the arbitrary reduction of 480 down to 300 based upon an unsupported schematic constructed on the 25 year generation (x 12), shown to be falsified by the 19 generations of Heman based on their accepted 25 year generation.At issue is INTERNAL O.T. consistency. You only arrive at your conclusion by including it in the premise.IOW, the consistency in the record is evidence of its artificiality ?Asserting inconsistency based on consistency is breathtaking ! I am not convinced. I must conclude that your insult above is caused by the inability to refute the physical evidence which rightfully places Ramses III in the 4th century BC.I think, based upon your handling of Biblical texts, that is asserting white (consistency) to be black (inconsistency) justifies the advice that anti-Biblical worldviews should stay away from the Bible as their unbeliever status predetermines the conclusions.This message has been edited by Herepton, 10-01-2005 08:00 PM

Sacrificing the known and proven accuracy of the Bible based on admitted ignorance is ***fantastically*** flabbergasting. Brian is a professional, he preys on typical theist ignorance about their own source. The only acceptable answer a person in your position should give is: "I know the theology is infinetly absolutely true....therefore the historical must be true."The Bible is a record showing off one immutable fact: God is in control. The even numbering is one area showing this. All external evidence confirms. Minimalists lift these issues out of context, that is the context of the many uneven figures to suit a previously decided agenda. Then a person like you comes along and admits you know nothing while accepting an asserted inaccuracy about the Bible = shaking my head with dumbfoundedness.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 10-01-2005 07:47 PM