|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The timeline of the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Very well, in that case you both ripped off the book word for word (with about 12 words different).
Now, either tell us what your argument is, in relation to this thread, or stop posting. If you want help with stopping posting I can suspend you...that often does the trick.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Not that I know of. But this is a tautology, of course; if we don't know about a missing verse, then of course we wouldn't know if it were missing! quote:No change in the meaning that I can see. quote:And if the text of Gen 5 does NOT mean this, your protasis is false and your apodosis does not follow. quote:It didn't, so far as I can see. But see my comments below on your "changing context" idea. quote:How many times do I have to answer them before you understand my answers? quote:Why do you keep asking such a silly question? quote:These questions and descriptions are not very clear. There is a literary context, a historical context, and a cultural context. I suppose you are referring to literary context, since you try to ignore the others. The literary context is what it is; I don't know what you mean by the context "changing". One can speak of an immediate literary context or of various broader literary contexts. Different passages have different immediate contexts; perhaps this is what you mean by a "change" in context? At any rate, "change" is not a normal way to refer to literary context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Since Adimus may have left, I'll try to answer some of this. The book which he recommended, "Hard Sayings of the Bible" is authored by a number of good Evangelical biblical scholars (Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, and Brauch). Chapter 4 deals with genealogies, and echoes much of what I've been saying here. Kaiser et al claim that it is improper to add the numbers in the genealogies from Gen 5 and Gen 11 "to determine the date for the creation of the world and the creation of Adam and Eve." They note that the biblical authors never totaled up any dates before the time of Abraham, while they DID do so after the time of Abraham. Kaiser et al then ask the obvious question (also asked here by Rrhain), "What, then, is the significance of these numbers that are so carefully recorded in the texts? If they are not to be added up, of what importance could their inclusion be?" Kaiser et al give two answers:1) the long initial numbers show that humans were "originally meant to be immortals and to live forever" 2) the decreasing ages of childbearing show "the effects of sin and death" Kaiser et al say that "abridgement is the general rule in biblical genealogies" As evidence they point to a number of things:1) three missing generations in the genealogy of Mt 1:8 2) one missing generation in Mt 1:11 3) Jesus described as "son of David", and David as "son of Abraham" (Mt 1:1); in both cases, MANY generations are skipped. This could be rewritten in the style of Gen 5 as: "And Abraham was 100 years old, ... and he begat David. And David was 40 years old, ... and he begat Jesus Christ." Kaiser et al summarize, "Thus the numbers of when these ancients had their firstborn function as the times when the line that was to come was given to them." Kaiser et al also note that the numbers for Terah don't add up correctly, indicating that we should avoid adding up these genealogical figures. (From Gen 11:26-32 it would seem that Abraham was 135 years old when Terah died, but according to Gen 12:4 Abraham left Haran at age 75 and according to Acts 7:4 Terah had already died at this time. Kaiser et al conclude that Gen 11 must be giving the Terah's age when he fathered his first child, but Abraham must have been a later child.) Kaiser et al point to a scholarly article by William Henry Green, "Primeval Chronology", Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1890, where issues of biblical chronologies were examined in detail. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5512 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
You and Peg went round and round about Terah being 205 when Abraham was 75.
quote: Then you are conceding the argument that Peg was right about the Terah Abraham syncrhonism. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote:quote: You do realize that there are multiple sources for the Bible, yes? There is no singular text, and no, I'm not talking about translations. Just because the most common text we have doesn't have a particular verse doesn't mean there isn't a verse there. The Orthodox Bible, for example, includes Psalms 151. At any rate, since you agree that there is no missing verse, then the context of the verses could not have been changed by a missing verse. Since the text does not have a break in flow and uses the exact same words to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch that it does to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, then any claim that the context is different will have to provide some other sort of justification for why it changed beyond a bald assertion of, "It just did."
quote: Then since the text does not have a break in flow and uses the exact same words to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch that it does to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, then any claim that the context is different will have to provide some other sort of justification for why it changed beyond a bald assertion of, "It just did."
quote:quote: Indeed, but do you or do you not agree that the relationship described between Adam and Seth is that of father and son? If Adam and Seth are father and son and there is no break in context for the rest of the section, by what justification do you conclude that none of the others are father and son? It isn't the words that are present, for they are exactly the same. It isn't an intervening verse, for there is nothing in saying that Adam died that would change the context of the relationship between Adam and Seth. And it isn't a verse that is no longer present in the text. So where do you find justification for why the context changed? "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: Just once. This would be the first time. So now that you have answered my questions which indicate that none of those things could possibly change the context of father/son relationships, this would be where you provide actual evidence to indicate that these particular passages in question do not mean father/son. Be specific. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: Because you keep on not answering it. I had to ask you literally 19 times before you bothered to give a direct response. And when you contradict yourself, I will ask it of you again. If you don't like the merry go round, get off the ride.
quote: Why? Since you agree that there is no missing verse, that the words are exactly the same, that nothing in the description of the death of Adam would change the relationship between Adam and Seth to something other than father/son, why does the context change for everybody else? Be specific. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: Incorrect. But in order to understand the historical and cultural context, you have to start with the words. Since the words are exactly the same, since there is nothing in the description of the death of Adam that would change the relationship between Adam and Seth, since there are no missing verses, what is your justification for why the context changes? Clearly the "literary, historical, and cultural" context is that of father and son or you would not have claimed that Adam and Seth were father and son. So why does it change for everybody else? Be specific. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? What on earth have we been talking about these past weeks? That the relationship between Adam and Seth is father/son but you then claim it changes such that the relationship between Jared and Enoch, despite using the exact same words as those to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, is something other than father/son. In order for "begat" to mean "father/son" with regard to Adam and Seth but "not father/son" with regard to Jared and Enoch requires a change in context. Do you even know what "context" means? It is the surrounding environment in which a communication is made that affects the meaning of the message. For example, modern context for women speaking in English will generally have a different meaning for the word "girlfriend" than when a man says it. When a woman says, "I went out with my girlfriend," there is commonly no implication of a romantic connection between the two of them. It is an indication that the woman has a friend who is another woman. When men say it, it generally means there is a romantic relationship. Now, this doesn't mean that a woman cannot mean she has a romantic relationship by the use of that word, but more context will be required. Thus we get back to my comment about establishing a context: Adam is the father of Seth, yes? The beginning of Genesis 5, including some of the ending of Genesis 4, makes the poing that Adam is the father of Seth, yes? That establishes context: We're talking about a father and son. So if you're going to then say that the later descriptions of people are something other than father and son, you need to provide the clues that tell us the context has changed. We've already established that the words do not change, there are no missing verses, the presence of the description of the death of Adam, none of these change the context. Therefore, if Jared is not the father of Enoch, something else is telling us that. What is it? What in the text tells us that the identical description of Jared to Enoch as Adam to Seth doesn't mean the same thing as Adam to Seth? In English, it might be a simple change of the gender of the person speaking that can change the context. Knowing the history or a certain character can change the context such that a reference to a "friend" might mean one thing to one character but something very different for another. So what in this description allows us to say that despite the fact that we are using the exact same words to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch that we used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, we don't mean the same thing? What changed the context? "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: No. Do you even know what the word "context" means?
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Since you seem to love bare quotations, here's one from a page on how to interpret biblical passages, (Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts, Alan R. Millard:
As those who investigate the history of traditions emphasize, a change of context may cause changes in the traditions themselves, but there is no controllable means for determining the presence or absence of such changes, or even a shift of context. Emphasis added. Please, let us not play dumb. This game you wish to fool around in, pretending that you don't understand what "change of context" means, is not helpful. If you do not wish to continue, then simply stop responding. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Daniel4140 responds to me:
quote: For the sake of argument, yes. Do you or do you not agree that even with this, the Bible still says that life, the universe, and everything are only about 6000 years old? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:As I have said repeatedly, the wording of Gen 5 does not mean this. It means that there is an ancestor/descendent relationship. quote:I do NOT "conclude that none of the others are father and son". Some may be, some may not be. The text does not claim that they are father/son, but ancestor/descendent. quote:Yes, the constructions in Gen 5 are identical and their meanings are identical. They mean ancestor/descendent. quote:Gen 5 is a single narrative; how can its "context change"? quote: In this thread I have summarized the evidence presented by both Kitchen and Kaiser et al. You have been given references for both of their books. They each reference a number of scholarly papers, including one from Bib Sac whose reference is given in this thread. You have yet to respond to any of this evidence in a responsible or scholarly fashion. Instead, you simply ignore it because you don't agree with it. Are you capable of doing any research on your own? Have you looked at ANY of the references you have been given? You sound like you want to be spoon-fed rather than doing any of this. You sound like Daniel4140 on another thread:http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Thanks for clarifying this. Millard is referring to a change in the historical/cultural context of the original event or account that is then recorded in a later text. I had no idea that this is what you meant; I thought you meant a change in the literary context, which is why your questions made no sense to me. It is clear that the narrative style of Gen 5 is different from that in Gen 4. The style changes from a straightforward narrative to a genealogy with a rigid, repetitive structure. This could be described as a slight change in genre. It could be said that there is a different immediate literary context for Gen 5 as compared to Gen 4. It perhaps could also be argued that the two chapters rest on different original sources, but as your Millard reference points out, this is highly speculative and hard to prove. But I would say that Gen 5 has a single style, genre, and literary context. Is this clear enough for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It seems that if you are going to show evidence for the claim that "abridgement is the general rule in biblical genealogies", you'd probably be wise to show this in numerous places, and the focus should probably be on the OT, given what we are looking at here.
But you say that Kaiser et al cite chapter 1 of Matthew as their evidence? Don't get me wrong, its an interesting point, but can we make any decent conclusions about the intent of the authors in Genesis based on the style of the authors of Matthew?
Kaiser et al also note that the numbers for Terah don't add up correctly, indicating that we should avoid adding up these genealogical figures. (From Gen 11:26-32 it would seem that Abraham was 135 years old when Terah died, but according to Gen 12:4 Abraham left Haran at age 75 and according to Acts 7:4 Terah had already died at this time. Kaiser et al conclude that Gen 11 must be giving the Terah's age when he fathered his first child, but Abraham must have been a later child.) Likewise, I'm not sure appealing to the Acts of the Apostles is a good way to interpret the events of Genesis. Where did 'Luke' get this information about Terah from exactly and why should we consider it a better source than Genesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: Good question. Yes, the culture of the NT writers is different than that of the OT writers. Both are Jewish cultures with Hebrew traditions and language. But the NT writers have an overlay of Greco-Roman culture and language that was absent in the OT. Nonetheless, the cultural context of the NT writers was closer to that of the OT writers than it is to us. Where word meanings and usage differ, the NT writers are probably more similar to the OT than to us. So it is certainly instructive to see how the NT writers used terms like "begat". I agree that it would be better to focus on the more immediate culture, i.e. the OT Hebrew culture, and also the surrounding OT cultures and languages (Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5512 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote:I'll be 149 years more generous. Nothing is more than 6149 years old (local time) --- that is the sun moves no more than 6149 times through the vernal equinox. According to the Bible, even the stars were created within this time frame. The Chronology of the Bible is entirely self consistent, and it contains cycles which transcend the ability of any contributor (except God) to engineer into the text. The whole timeline is at the link below. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Nothing is more than 6149 years old (local time) --- that is the sun moves no more than 6149 times through the vernal equinox. Nonsense. This has been easily refuted by scientific data. That you won't accept that data means nothing.
According to the Bible, even the stars were created within this time frame. Nonsense again.
The Chronology of the Bible is entirely self consistent, and it contains cycles which transcend the ability of any contributor (except God) to engineer into the text. So its consistent myth. Big deal. Its still refuted by scientific data. Your constant denial means nothing.
Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Nonsense. There was no global flood at that date or any other date anywhere close. Its local myth that, like Tolkien's tales, "Grew in the telling." Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5512 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Whatever... this thread is about the timeline of the Bible. So discuss what the bible says on the bible's terms. Like I said, the data for the Bible's chronology is a given. I cannot alter it. Therefore, finding that it is totally consistent over centuries and centuries proves divine intervention in both the preservation of the chronology and its original design.
Let's take the simple step of adding up the chronology to the seven years of abundance under Joseph and the seven years of famine. Doing this, it is at once evident that these seven year periods synchronize with the date of the creation --- exactly modulus 7. Then continue the chronology to the conquest of Canaan, and you will see that the seventh year synchronizes there as well. These seven year periods continue through the whole of biblical chronology right into the "End of Days" (remember the seven year tribulation). That's when all the ungodly evolutionists get judged by God. Many chronologers have tried to recover such a sabbatical conclusion and failed. The only difference is I had a computer to process all the data, and suceeded. It's no different than solving an equation. When you got the solution you can easily check it. Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Let's take the simple step of adding up the chronology to the seven years of abundance under Joseph and the seven years of famine. Doing this, it is at once evident that these seven year periods synchronize with the date of the creation --- exactly modulus 7. Then continue the chronology to the conquest of Canaan, and you will see that the seventh year synchronizes there as well.
Folks have done literary criticism of Chaucer and Shakespeare for centuries, but that doesn't make their fiction any the more real. These seven year periods continue through the whole of biblical chronology right into the "End of Days" (remember the seven year tribulation). That's when all the ungodly evolutionists get judged by God. Many chronologers have tried to recover such a sabbatical conclusion and failed. The only difference is I had a computer to process all the data, and suceeded. It's no different than solving an equation. When you got the solution you can easily check it.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5512 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
For instance, if you look up the link below and go to the charts on page 166: http://www.torahtimes.org/book/page166.pdf you will see the seven years of Nebucadnezzar's madness fit into the history of Babylon.
Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024