Hi all,
Surfing around the web, I came upon several sites discussing calendars. They talked about lunar reckoning rather than solar reckoning in early ages.
Given the probability of the Genesis stories being oral traditions long before being written down, what are the opinions of those here on the forums concerning the early biblical characters' ages being based on a lunar format. Taking 12.37 lunar cycles for ever solar cycle, this would put most absurd biblical ages well within, at least modern, human age spans. Adam 930 = 75, Seth 912 = 73, Methusala 969 = 78, and Noah 950 = 76.
If these original stories came from times pre-dating advanced astronomy, wouldn't it be logical for early man to "date" things by a lunar cycle rather than a solar one? As these stories get passed down in an oral tradition, it could be simple mistranslations of the cycle used to create the grossly excessive life spans of early biblical characters.
This seems pretty logical to me. Much more logical than some of the literalist posters here, contorting biblical stories and verse to explain the great ages as proof of a "terrarium atmosphere" and perfection in the gene pool. (Of course, this plays havoc with Bishop Ussher's calculations)
Anyway, this is just something that seemed interesting in the wee hours this morning,
and I was wondering when astronomy/astrology became well known in the area. These stories would have had to pre-date any Babylonian or Greek astronomical advances by quite a bit.
http://thor.idx.com.au/evolve/oldestman.htmhttp://evolutionofgenesis.homestead.com/Ages.htmlhttp://www.flood-myth.com/ages.htm
sorry if this doesn't make any sense, I pulled an all-nighter last night and am slightly buggy right now
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato