Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 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:   The timeline of the Bible
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 316 (503096)
03-16-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Daniel4140
03-16-2009 12:20 AM


Re: Universe Only 6148 years Old
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.
More literary criticism. You sure you aren't an English major?
I prefer science fiction to religious fiction. Science fiction has to be logical, and to take place within a believable context.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Daniel4140, posted 03-16-2009 12:20 AM Daniel4140 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 92 of 316 (503128)
03-16-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 7:52 PM


Re: Universe Only 6148 years Old
Daniel,
These seven year periods continue through the whole of biblical chronology right into the "End of Days"
You're right, no human could multiply & divide by 7!
Good fucking grief...
Even so, I wonder how many things there are in the bible that don't fit the times seven theory?
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 7:52 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2009 11:11 AM mark24 has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 93 of 316 (503142)
03-16-2009 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by mark24
03-16-2009 9:28 AM


Re: Universe Only 6148 years Old
I have just come up with a new theory. It is the 3.5 theory. Everything in the bible is multiples of 3.5.
I agree this is ludicrous beyond the extreme. This is the same guy that discounts all science that does not agree with his belief in a young earth.
Numerology and numerological divination were popular among early mathematicians, such as Pythagoras, but are no longer considered part of mathematics and are regarded as pseudomathematics by modern scientists
Today, numerology is often not associated with numbers, but with the occult, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.
Source
Daniel,
If you don't like Wikipedia then follow the links to the original source.
Oh that's right, you are incapable of going to and working with any source material besides that book of mythology you put so much credence in. What's it called again? Oh yeah its a bible.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by mark24, posted 03-16-2009 9:28 AM mark24 has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 94 of 316 (503259)
03-17-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Daniel4140
03-14-2009 9:36 PM


Re: Terah-Abraham
Peg gives in when arguments go round and round for too long
Im so glad someone finally got it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Daniel4140, posted 03-14-2009 9:36 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

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


Message 95 of 316 (503440)
03-19-2009 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by kbertsche
03-15-2009 10:28 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
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?
As I have said repeatedly, the wording of Gen 5 does not mean this. It means that there is an ancestor/descendent relationship.
So Adam is not Seth's father?
quote:
Gen 5 is a single narrative; how can its "context change"?
That's my point. Since we start off with a father/son relationship, that is the context. But you seem to be saying that no, Adam is not Seth's father.
Is that what you are saying?
Do you or do you not agree that the relationship described between Adam and Seth is that of father and son?
quote:
In this thread I have summarized the evidence presented by both Kitchen and Kaiser et al.
If the summary is nothing but the bald assertion you've provided, then "Kitchen says so" is not merely insufficient, it is completely unjustified. It is not enough to say it "could" mean it. You have to show why it does.
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
quote:
You have yet to respond to any of this evidence in a responsible or scholarly fashion.
Incorrect. I have asked for justification. It is not sufficient to simply say that it could be interpreted in a specific way. And yet, that is all you have provided. Actually, you haven't even provided that...you've just quoted people who merely asserted that it could be interpreted that way. At not time was there ever any actual justification for why this particular instance should be interpreted this way. I have begged and pleaded with you to provide more justification, more evidence that we can find as to why the context of a father/son relationship would suddenly change, but so far you haven't provided any and are now seemingly pulling away from the claim that the relationship between Adam and Seth is described as being father/son.
quote:
Are you capable of doing any research on your own?
Nice try, but that's my argument to you. You're the one who's supposed to do the work. I am not here to do your homework for you. I've gone to the text over and over again, asking you specific questions about why you come to the conclusion that you do, but you have avoided every chance to explain yourself.
If you cannot justify your own argument, I'm certainly not going to do it for you. I don't know what your argument is, so how could I?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2009 10:28 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 96 of 316 (503441)
03-19-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by kbertsche
03-15-2009 11:16 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
It is clear that the narrative style of Gen 5 is different from that in Gen 4.
Says who? Indeed, Genesis 4 was written by the J author while Genesis 5 was written by R, that doesn't mean the context has changed. After all, the genealogy starts with Adam and Seth who are described as being father and son.
Or are they? You keep vacillating on the point. Do you or do you not agree that Adam and Seth are described as being father and son?
quote:
It could be said that there is a different immediate literary context for Gen 5 as compared to Gen 4.
How? What in the narrative of Gen 5 do we find Adam and Seth being described as something other than father and son?
quote:
But I would say that Gen 5 has a single style, genre, and literary context.
Is this clear enough for you?
Well, yes: Everybody is listed as father and son: Single style, genre, and context.
You keep saying that no, they're not father and son but you keep refusing to explain why the context established at the beginning with Adam and Seth doesn't carry over to the rest of them.
Do you or do you not agree that Adam and Seth are described as being father and son?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2009 11:16 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Perdition, posted 03-19-2009 2:10 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 97 of 316 (503442)
03-19-2009 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Coyote
03-15-2009 6:26 PM


Coyote writes:
quote:
This has been easily refuted by scientific data.
Irrelevant. This thread is not about whether or not the Bible is accurate. It is only to do with the refutation of the claim that "The Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old."
It does. It does say 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Coyote, posted 03-15-2009 6:26 PM Coyote has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 98 of 316 (503491)
03-19-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rrhain
03-19-2009 12:36 AM


Talking Past Each Other
Hi Rrhain,
I apologize for jumping into the middle of this, but it looks to me like you and kbertsche are talking past each other.
It sounds to me like he is saying that the Hebrew word that is translated as "begat" means, or can mean, approximately "is ancestor to" rather than only "is father to" or "fathered."
This is functionally equivalent to me writing a story and, for some reason, mentioning that Michael is the patriarch of my clan and had children when he was 18. Micahel is the ancestor to John, who had children at 22. John is the ancestor to Mark, who had children at 25. Mark is the ancestor to me. Now, elsewhere in the story, it may become clear that Mark is indeed my father, but that doesn't necessarily mean that John is Mark's father.
The debate then becomes whether the Hebrew word can be translated that way. (Not being a Hebrew scholar in any way, I have no idea if this is true.) A side argument can become why I would mention John and Mark at all, unless they were integral to the story. Similarly, why would they mention people between Seth and Abraham if they have no particular relevance? If the only relevance is that they had sons, then all of the people between Seth and Abraham would have that same relevance and would, probably, all have been mentioned.
Personally, I find it makes the most sense that this is a list of direct decendants, as you are arguing, but I can see the argument that kbertsche is making, and I don't think you're arguing against it.

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2009 12:36 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2009 10:22 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 101 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2009 1:46 AM Perdition has not replied

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


Message 99 of 316 (503536)
03-19-2009 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Perdition
03-19-2009 2:10 PM


Perdition responds to me:
quote:
I apologize for jumping into the middle of this, but it looks to me like you and kbertsche are talking past each other.
It sounds to me like he is saying that the Hebrew word that is translated as "begat" means, or can mean, approximately "is ancestor to" rather than only "is father to" or "fathered."
No, we're not talking past each other. I very much understand that kbertsche is saying this. And for the sake of argument, I going along with it.
What I am asking him to provide is justification that this specific narrative is using that interpretation. The phrasing at the beginning of the narrative, saying that Adam "begat" Seth, is interpreted to mean that Adam is the direct father of Seth. That this interpretation is coming from previous verses saying that Adam had sex with Eve and she had a son called Seth is irrelevant: It sets up the context about how we are to interpret the phrase, "Adam begat Seth." In this case, "begat" means "direct father."
All of the other generations use the exact same words, only changing the names of the people involved and the ages of progenitors.
Therefore, if the description of Adam and Seth is to be interpreted to mean father/son, why would none of the others mean that? The wording is identical, the following passages follow immediately upon the description of Adam and Seth, and we agree that pausing to mention that Adam died at 930 years old isn't an indication of a change of context.
So again, if Adam and Seth are father and son while using "begat," what makes us suddenly think that it doesn't mean father and son anywhere else?
If he's going to say that "begat" in this passage doesn't mean father and son, he's going to have to provide the justification for why it means it at the beginning but never anywhere else given that the context didn't change.
So no, we're not talking past each other. I am asking him to provide specifics to justify his claim and he is avoiding the question at all costs.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Perdition, posted 03-19-2009 2:10 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2009 12:01 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 102 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2009 2:22 AM Rrhain has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 100 of 316 (503541)
03-20-2009 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Rrhain
03-19-2009 10:22 PM


I understand what you're sayi9ng, but I still think it's missing his point. What he's claiming is that if all the Bible said was "Adam begat Seth" we wouldn't be able to determine if Adam was Seth's father or not. Likewise, if all the Bible says is any other person begat someone else, we can't tell if it's direct parentage or not. The only reason we know that Seth was Adam's son was that a completely different line told us it was so.
All of the other generations use the exact same words, only changing the names of the people involved and the ages of progenitors.
Therefore, if the description of Adam and Seth is to be interpreted to mean father/son, why would none of the others mean that? The wording is identical, the following passages follow immediately upon the description of Adam and Seth, and we agree that pausing to mention that Adam died at 930 years old isn't an indication of a change of context.
What he's saying is that the description is different because the Adam/Seth relationship has more context and is more explicitly told than the others.
That this interpretation is coming from previous verses saying that Adam had sex with Eve and she had a son called Seth is irrelevant: It sets up the context about how we are to interpret the phrase, "Adam begat Seth." In this case, "begat" means "direct father."
That is one way to read that. And since I don't know Hebrew, I can't say whether that is the only way to read that or not. kbertsche is saying that the previous verses saying that Adam had sex with Eve and she had a son called Seth is there specifically because the "begat" doesn't say it explicitly, and is only to be used in that specific instance. Were they intending to say the same thing about the rest of the begats, they would have specifically said so.
Again, this is not my interpretation, I'm just curious to see what your ultimate point is, and this cross arguing seems to be bogging it down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2009 10:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Rrhain, posted 03-20-2009 4:10 PM Perdition has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 101 of 316 (503543)
03-20-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Perdition
03-19-2009 2:10 PM


Re: Talking Past Each Other
quote:
I apologize for jumping into the middle of this, but it looks to me like you and kbertsche are talking past each other.
It sounds to me like he is saying that the Hebrew word that is translated as "begat" means, or can mean, approximately "is ancestor to" rather than only "is father to" or "fathered."
Exactly. Rrhain is not addressing this, probably because he has no proof of his position.
I'll try to summarize our positions and evidence.
Fundamental question:
What is the meaning of "begat" in Gen 5?
Rrhain's position:
"Begat" in Gen 5 always means a literal father/son relationship. (If it did not, Rrhain couldn't build a timeline from the dates recorded there.)
Rrhain's evidence:
1) The first mentioned "begat" in Gen 5 (Adam-Seth) was a literal father-son, as we know from Gen 4. The subsequent "begats" follow an identical grammatical form, so they must be literal father-son relationships, also.
2) The ancient Jewish calendar assumed literal father-son relationships.
3) In normal usage, "begat" refers to a father-son relationship.
My position:
"Begat" in Gen 5 means a general ancestor-descendent relationship. This MAY be father-son, or it may not.
My evidence:
1) There are other biblical usages of "begat" which are NOT literal father-son relationship. Zilpah "begat" sixteen individuals to Jacob, but these include great-grandchildren (Gen 46:18). The prime example is the genealogy of Matthew 1, where nearly all of the "begats" are literal father-son, but two clearly are not. (This is NT rather than OT, and is much later than Gen 5, but it is still a Hebrew culture and illustrates Hebrew usage of "begat".)
2) There are many non-literal biblical usages of "father" and "son." "Son of Abraham" and "son of David" are common. Jehu is said to be "son" of Nimshi, but was actually a grandson (1 Kings 19:15; 2 Kings 9:2,20).
3) The surrounding cultures in OT times (Egypt, Babylon) likewise skipped generations in their genealogies and used "father" and "son" in a non-literal sense.
4) Scholars of Hebrew, the Old Testament, and the ancient near east claim that "begat" denotes ancestor-descendent, not necessarily father-son.
Comments:
Rrhain's timeline argument DEPENDS on there being no gaps in the genealogies of Gen 5. He is the one trying to construct a timeline; the burden of proof is on him to prove that there are no gaps so that his argument doesn't fall apart.
My argument is simply that it is LIKELY that there are gaps in the genealogy of Gen 5. I don't need to prove there there actually ARE gaps; all I need to do is to show "reasonable doubt" in Rrhain's argument. I have done this by showing biblical examples, extrabiblical examples, and expert testimony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Perdition, posted 03-19-2009 2:10 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 03-20-2009 4:45 PM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 102 of 316 (503544)
03-20-2009 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Rrhain
03-19-2009 10:22 PM


quote:
What I am asking him to provide is justification that this specific narrative is using that interpretation. The phrasing at the beginning of the narrative, saying that Adam "begat" Seth, is interpreted to mean that Adam is the direct father of Seth. That this interpretation is coming from previous verses saying that Adam had sex with Eve and she had a son called Seth is irrelevant: It sets up the context about how we are to interpret the phrase, "Adam begat Seth." In this case, "begat" means "direct father."
All of the other generations use the exact same words, only changing the names of the people involved and the ages of progenitors.
Therefore, if the description of Adam and Seth is to be interpreted to mean father/son, why would none of the others mean that? The wording is identical, the following passages follow immediately upon the description of Adam and Seth, and we agree that pausing to mention that Adam died at 930 years old isn't an indication of a change of context.
So again, if Adam and Seth are father and son while using "begat," what makes us suddenly think that it doesn't mean father and son anywhere else?
If he's going to say that "begat" in this passage doesn't mean father and son, he's going to have to provide the justification for why it means it at the beginning but never anywhere else given that the context didn't change.
Rrhain is making a plausible argument here, but it is not a proof. He could use exactly the same logic on the genealogy of Matthew 1, and would clearly come to a wrong conclusion. Let's try it. Paraphrasing his argument above:
"The phrasing at the beginning of the narrative (Mt 1:2), saying that Abraham "begat" Isaac, is interpreted to mean that Abraham is the direct father of Isaac. That this interpretation is coming from the Old Testament is irrelevant: It sets up the context about how we are to interpret the phrase, "Abraham begat Isaac." In this case, "begat" means "direct father."
"All of the other generations use the exact same words, only changing the names of the people involved."
"Therefore, if the description of Abraham and Isaac is to be interpreted to mean father/son, why would none of the others mean that? The wording is identical, the following passages follow immediately upon the description of Abraham and Isaac."
"So again, if Abraham and Isaac are father and son while using "begat," what makes us suddenly think that it doesn't mean father and son anywhere else?"
Rrhain's argument sounds just as plausible here, and he would actually be correct for 20 generations (according to the Old Testament, the first 20 actually ARE father-son relationships). But he would be wrong on the next generation. In Mt 1:8, where Joram "begat" Uzziah, three generations are skipped. Uzziah was actually the great-great-grandson of Joram according to the Old Testament. But note that the Joram-Uzziah wording is identical to the Asa-Jehoshaphat and the Jehoshaphat-Joram wording in Mt 1:8. There is no hint in the wording of the genealogy that any generations have been skipped. (Likewise for the generation skipped in Mt. 1:11.)
Rrhain's argument assumes his conclusion rather than proving it. The fact that the grammar is identical for each of the "begats", and the fact that the first is a literal father-son relationship, does NOT prove that all of the subsequent "begats" must be literal father-son relationships, as we see in Mt 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2009 10:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Rrhain, posted 03-20-2009 6:19 PM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 103 of 316 (503611)
03-20-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Perdition
03-20-2009 12:01 AM


Perdition responds to me:
quote:
What he's claiming is that if all the Bible said was "Adam begat Seth" we wouldn't be able to determine if Adam was Seth's father or not.
That may very well be, but that isn't what we have. We have an entire setup that tells us quite specifically and directly that Seth is Adam's son. And immediately upon establishing that fact, we are told that Adam "begat" Seth. And immediately upon establishing that phrase, we are told that Seth "begat" Enos using the exact same words to describe how Adam "begat" Seth.
We've established a phrasing. If we're going to change the meaning, we need to have something different that indicates a change in meaning.
quote:
What he's saying is that the description is different because the Adam/Seth relationship has more context and is more explicitly told than the others.
I know. But that establishes the context. All that description is topped off by the statement that Adam "begat" Seth and then immediately upon that statement, we are told that Seth "begat" Enos. So if we had a build up of context to tell us that we mean father/son by the use of "begat," what changed between the time we used that word for Adam/Seth and the time we used that word for anybody else in the string?
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
This doesn't deny that "begat" might mean "ancestor." I am simply asking why, when we have established that in this particular instance that it does NOT indicate "ancestor" but rather "father," does it suddenly change without any contextual indication to establish that change?
quote:
That is one way to read that.
Huh?
4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
Isn't that pretty direct to state that Seth is the direct son of Adam and that Enos is the direct son of Seth?
So now that we have established that, when we immediately follow that by saying Adam "begat" Seth, aren't we hooking into the context we just established and thus "begat" indicates "father" rather than "ancestor"? And when we immediately follow that by saying Seth "begat" Enos, aren't we solidifying the context that by "begat" we are indicating "father" rather than "ancestor"?
I need specifics. Where do we find anything in the text that leads us to think that after going on and on about direct father/son relationships and using "yalad" to describe them, it no longer indicates "father" but rather "ancestor"?
quote:
kbertsche is saying that the previous verses saying that Adam had sex with Eve and she had a son called Seth is there specifically because the "begat" doesn't say it explicitly
And I agree with that. That's what establishes the context. We talk about not one but two direct father/son relationships and then immediately describe them both as "begat" and then, without any interruption, we use the exact same words to describe the rest of the genealogy.
If "begat" indicates "father" at the beginning, when did it suddenly shift to "ancestor"?
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
quote:
and is only to be used in that specific instance.
But in order for it to mean that only in that one specific instance, there has to be a contextual change after it to show that we don't mean that anymore. Especially when we start up a chain of "begats" that are solidly established as father/son. We say that Adam "begat" Seth and we mean he was the direct father. We don't stop but immediately say that Seth "begat" Enos and we mean that he was the direct father. We don't stop but immediately say that Enos "begat" Cainan.
What lets us know that we've shifted our meaning from "father" to "ancestor"?
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
quote:
Were they intending to say the same thing about the rest of the begats, they would have specifically said so.
THEY DID!
They go out of their way to establish Adam as the father of Seth who is the father of Enos...and then they don't stop.
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2009 12:01 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2009 10:38 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 134 by Perdition, posted 03-23-2009 5:12 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 104 of 316 (503615)
03-20-2009 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by kbertsche
03-20-2009 1:46 AM


kbertsche writes:
quote:
Rrhain is not addressing this, probably because he has no proof of his position.
Incorrect. I have provided the text. What evidence do you have?
Do you not agree that Adam is the father of Seth? Do you not agree that Seth is the father of Enos? Do you not agree that the text says that Adam "begat" Seth? Do you not agree that the text says that Seth "begat" Enos?
So given that there is no contextual change in this chain of "begats," what makes the later ones mean something different from the earlier ones?
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
quote:
1) The first mentioned "begat" in Gen 5 (Adam-Seth) was a literal father-son, as we know from Gen 4. The subsequent "begats" follow an identical grammatical form, so they must be literal father-son relationships, also.
Oh, it's so much more than that. Not only is the first "begat" in Gen 5 a literal father/son, but also the second one. Seth is the father of Enos as previously established, too.
So we then establish a contextual basis for what "begat" means: Father and son. Adam "begat" Seth who "begat" Enos who "begat" Cainan who "begat"....
What justification is there to claim that when Enos "begat" Cainan, we don't mean the same thing as when Seth "begat" Enos?
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
quote:
There are other biblical usages of "begat" which are NOT literal father-son relationship.
And that's all well and good. But what you need to explain is why this particular usage isn't father and son since it is part of a chain that starts off meaning father and son and has no contextual changes to indicate that it shifted meaning from "father" to "ancestor."
It is not enough to say they didn't mean it some other, unrelated passage. We are talking about this passage here. What do they mean here? What is the contextual justification here in this passage?
quote:
There are many non-literal biblical usages of "father" and "son."
And that's all well and good. But what you need to explain is why this particular usage doesn't mean actual father and son since it is part of a chain that starts off meaning specifically father and son and has no contextual changes to indicate that it shifted meaning from "father" and "son" to "ancestor" and "descendant."
It is not enough to say they didn't mean it some other, unrelated passage. We are talking about this passage here. What do they mean here? What is the contextual justification here in this passage?
quote:
The surrounding cultures in OT times (Egypt, Babylon) likewise skipped generations in their genealogies and used "father" and "son" in a non-literal sense.
First, you have not established this. "Kitchen says so" is not justification.
Second, even if we assume this to be true, what you need to explain is why this particular usage doesn't mean actual father and son since it is part of a chain that starts off meaning specifically father and son and has no contextual changes to indicate that it shifted meaning from "father" and "son" to "ancestor" and "descendant."
It is not enough to say they didn't mean it some other, unrelated passage. We are talking about this passage here. What do they mean here? What is the contextual justification here in this passage?
quote:
Scholars of Hebrew, the Old Testament, and the ancient near east claim that "begat" denotes ancestor-descendent, not necessarily father-son.
You have not established this.
quote:
He is the one trying to construct a timeline; the burden of proof is on him to prove that there are no gaps so that his argument doesn't fall apart.
And I have.
If you disagree with the timeline, it is your burden of proof to show where I have overlooked something. Your claim is that the description of Genesis 5 doesn't mean father/son. Therefore, it is your burden of proof to show why it doesn't since the text directly states that Adam is the father of Seth who is the father of Enos and then doesn't stop or provide any other contextual indication that things have changed.
Question: Is Adam the father of Seth?
Question: Is Seth the father of Enos?
quote:
My argument is simply that it is LIKELY that there are gaps in the genealogy of Gen 5.
Where is your justification? "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
Is Adam the father of Seth? Is Seth the father of Enos?
quote:
I don't need to prove there there actually ARE gaps;
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? You don't need to justify your own argument?
quote:
all I need to do is to show "reasonable doubt" in Rrhain's argument.
But you haven't even done that. You've provided no textual examples and done nothing but baldly assert. Even your supposed "authorities" you've cited were nothing more than bald assertions with no justification.
Is Adam the father of Seth? Is Seth the father of Enos?
quote:
I have done this by showing biblical examples,
Irrelevant. It is not enough to say they didn't mean it some other, unrelated passage. We are talking about this passage here. What do they mean here? What is the contextual justification here in this passage?
quote:
extrabiblical examples
No, you haven't. But even if you had, it is irrelevant. It is not enough to say they didn't mean it some other, unrelated passage. We are talking about this passage here. What do they mean here? What is the contextual justification here in this passage?
quote:
expert testimony.
Argument from authority? You really expect that to fly?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2009 1:46 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2009 2:27 PM Rrhain has replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5483 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 105 of 316 (503616)
03-20-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coyote
03-15-2009 8:09 PM


Re: Universe Only 6148 years Old
quote:
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.
You said, "Folks have done literary criticism of Chaucer and Shakespeare for centuries, but that doesn't make their fiction any the more real."
If you are trying to say that the seven year cycle does not synchronize with Jospeh's plenty and famine years, then that's not an itellectually honest way to do it. Prove my math wrong. It's all online.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 03-15-2009 8:09 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 03-20-2009 6:22 PM Daniel4140 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