The timeline of the Bible

kertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain is making a plausible argument here, but it is not a proof.

---

Incorrect.Is Adam the father of Seth?Is Seth the father of Enos?Yes or nos, please.

quote:

---

Paraphrasing his argument above

---

No, let's not. Let's use my exact argument, shall we? We're not talking about Matthew. We're talking about Genesis.For one thing, Matthew has a comparative genealogy in Luke. The two of them contradict. They share only four names in common despite listing 26 generations between David and Jesus in Matthew and 41 in Luke, they can't agree on the relationship among them. Matthew lists Eliakim as being a descendant of Salathiel while Luke has him as an ancestor.Genesis doesn't have this. The only genealogy we have for the generations between Adam and Noah is the one listed in Genesis 5.

quote:

---

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.

---

There's a much more logical explanation: Matthew got it wrong. It won't be the last time a New Testament text misquots an Old Testament text. Hell, Matthew 1 goes on to forget that Jehoiakim is between Josiah and Jeconiah.This doesn't mean that Matthew isn't talking about fathers and sons. It simply means it screwed up the genealogy.Genesis doesn't have this problem. See, you can go on and on about the New Testament all you want, but it is irrelevant. We aren't talking about Matthew or Luke or 1 Chronicles. We're talking about Genesis. Therefore, we have to approach it from the context of Genesis.It's all well and good that other passage might mean something different. That isn't the question. The question is what does this passage mean. Given its context, what is it trying to say?You will note that I haven't mentioned the book of Jasher which gives more information regarding the relationships of the characters in Gen 5: Notice the direct descriptions of the various characters still being alive at other events. 4:9 is particularly compelling: "In those days when Lamech the son of Methuselah was one hundred and sixty years old, Seth the son of Adam died." Seth is still alive when Lamech, seven generations after him, is alive. Jasher 3 has a similar passage, describing how Adam is buried by Enoch and Methuselah.Of course, there's a bit of a problem with the math. Jasher 3 states: Well, Adam lived 800 years after Seth. But if you add up all the ages listed in Jasher from the birth of Seth to the death of Adam, you only get 600:Seth is 105 when he sires Enosh (Jasher 2:2).
Enosh is 90 when he sires Cainan (Jasher 2:10).
Cainan is 70 when he sires Mahlallel (Jasher 2:15-16).
Mahlallel is 65 when he sires Jared (Jasher 2:37).
Jared is 62 when he sires Enoch (Jasher 2:37).
Enoch is 65 when he sires Methuselah (Jasher 3:1).
Methuselah is 87 when he sires Lamech (Jasher 3:13).
Lamech is 56 when Adam dies (Jasher 3:14).But when you add those up, you only get 600, not 800. Genesis 5 would have the math add up correctly because it says Jared is 162 when he sires Enoch, not 62 and Methuselah is 187 when he sires Lamech, not 87.The point: Cross-text references make mistakes.But, I don't refer to this to provide context for Genesis because the status of Jasher is in doubt. Thus, I don't expect it to be taken seriously and it doesn't have an effect on how we study Genesis.And thus, we don't look to Matthew or Luke to tell us how to study Genesis. Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. To take a Christian interpretation, even though it supports what I am saying, doesn't help.Where in Genesis do we find any justification for the claim that the genealogy in Gen 5 is anything other than father/son? Especially since the first part of the chain is definitively father/son?Is Adam the father of Seth?Is Seth the father of 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?

---

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.

Daniel4140 writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

And completely off-topic. If you want to talk about numerology in the Bible, start another thread.

---

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.

Sabbatical years are relevant to the timeline of the bible. They are referenced by seven year periods. They should add up to a consistent cycle, and they do. They were observed by letting the land go fallow and cancelling debts. That's hardly "numerology", which I consider an intellectually disingenuous attempt to dismiss the data.

---

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

This is my thread, Daniel4140. You are off-topic.This thread is solely about determining the timeline of the Bible, not any mysticism to be found within it.

---

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.

quote:

---

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?

​

...

​

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?

---

Again, your argument applies equally well to Mt 1 as to Gen 5. Doing this reveals the flaws in your logic, and shows that you are merely giving a plausibility argument, not a proof.Your argument applied to Mt 1 would say:
"Do you not agree that Abraham is the father of Isaac? Do you not agree that Isaac is the father of Jacob? Do you not agree that the text says that Abraham "begat" Isaac? Do you not agree that the text says that Isaac "begat" Jacob?"Yes, I agree with all of these things, both for Mt 1 as above and for Gen 5 in your original quote.Your argument would say:
"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?"My reply for the nth time: there is NO change in meaning. They all mean an ancestor-descendent relationship. Whether this is a direct father-son relationship or something more distant is irrelevant to the meaning of the word.Your argument would say:
"Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Abraham after Isaac and then Abraham's death changes it? How?"Again for the nth time, we know of no missing verses.Your argument would say:
"If the text means that Abraham was the father of Isaac, how can the exact same description not mean that Joram is the father of Ozias/Uzziah?"Here is a flaw in your logic. You assume that "begat" MEANS father-son, not ancestor-descendent. You have asserted it, not proven it. If "begat" means the more general ancestor-descendent, there is no problem with the first few relationships listed being father-son and others being more distant.Your argument would say:
"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 is another flaw in your logic. Yes, it is a fact that the first few "begats" listed are father-son relationships. Yes, this is part of the immediate literary context. But this immediate literary context does not necessarily affect the word's meaning or usage. If "begat" simply means ancestor-descendent, this is fully consistent the context where with the first few relationships are father-son.Your argument would say:
"Oh, it's so much more than that. Not only is the first "begat" in Mt 1 a literal father/son, but also the second one. Isaac is the father of Jacob as previously established, too."Agreed, both for Mt 1 as shown and for Gen 5.Your argument would say:
"So we then establish a contextual basis for what "begat" means: Father and son. Abraham "begat" Isaac who "begat" Jacob who "begat" Judas who "begat"...."Another logical flaw. The context does not limit the meaning of the word "begat" to father-son. If "begat" simply means ancestor-descendent, this is fully consistent the context where with the first few relationships are father-son. The context adds more information about the first few relationships, but it does not change the claim of Mt 1 (or Gen 5) that these are ancestor-descendent relationships.Your argument would say:
"What justification is there to claim that when Joram "begat" Ozias/Uzziah, we don't mean the same thing as when Abraham "begat" Isaac?"Nothing in the context of Mt 1 (or Gen 5) would tell us that there are missing generations.Your argument would say:
"Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Abraham after Isaac and then Abraham's death changes it? How? If the text means that Abraham was the father of Isaac, how can the exact same description not mean that Joram is the father of Ozias/Uzziah? 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?"The logical flaws in this argument have been shown above. The fact is that there ARE gaps between Joram and Ozias/Uzziah. But nothing in the immediate context of Mt 1 would hint at this. Likewise, there may well be gaps in Gen 5 without anything in the immediate context hinting at this.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

In msg 107 you wrote: While you are concerned about "off topic" -I thought that the discussion was on the timeline of the Bible.
Perhaps you wish to change it to "the Timeline of Various Hebrew Apochryphal Books".Jasher was not included in the Hebrew canon, as interesting as it may be.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What do you have the right to determine what is relevant to biblical chronology just because you started the thread?????

---

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

quote:

---

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?

---

We have NOT "established that in this particular instance that it does NOT indicate "ancestor" but rather "father."" Rather, the word "begat" only indicates "ancestor", even in this context. The preceeding narrative (Gen 4) gives us MORE information than is supplied by the word "begat." This additional information does not change the meaning of "begat." Rather, it ADDS supplemental information to the ancestor-descendent relationships described by "begat."Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There's a much more logical explanation: Matthew got it wrong. It won't be the last time a New Testament text misquots an Old Testament text. Hell, Matthew 1 goes on to forget that Jehoiakim is between Josiah and Jeconiah.

​

This doesn't mean that Matthew isn't talking about fathers and sons. It simply means it screwed up the genealogy.

---

It is possible that Matthew messed up and accidentally missed 4 generations in his genealogy, but this is unlikely.Note Mt 1:17: If Matthew had not skipped the four generations that he did, he would not have had 3x14 generations. It is unlikely that he accidentally skipped the right number of generations to make the three counts equal.It is more likely that Matthew intentionally skipped generations so that he could obtain this threefold symmetry of 14 generations each. Why would he want to do this? I can see two reasons:
1) It provides a good mnemonic. This was more of an oral than a written culture, and such symmetries were helpful in remembering the story.
2) The number 14 is significant in the context. Matthew is establishing Jesus as a descendent of David, the prophesied heir to David's throne. The number corresponding to the name "David" is 14. The Hebrews would number the alphabet (aleph=1, beth=2, gimel=3, etc.) to assign a number to each letter. The number of a word would be obtained by adding the numbers of each letter in the word. Thus "David" (daleth-waw-daleth) is 4+6+4=14.This has direct relevance to Gen 5. Note that Gen 5 lists 10 generations from Adam to the Flood, and Gen 11 lists 10 generations from the Flood to Abraham. Both counts equal 10. This suggests that the Genesis genealogies may have been similarly selected in order to force the counts to be equal, perhaps to provide a better mnemonic.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Yeh, I have to agree that its pure nonsense that Matthew made a mistake by skipping generations. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain INGNORANT of the Hebrew and Greek relational terms.1. Josiah (640-609)
2. Jehoahaz (609) Skipped
3. Jehoiakim (608-598)Skipped
4. Jehociahin (597)Everyone knew the reasons. The skipped generations were especially wicked.

---

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

You set the topic, so I'll quote from it -- from the first post:

quote:

---

Genesis 8 says that Noah was 601 when the flood was over (1557 years total).

​

Genesis 11 has the generations of Noah to Abraham (292 years from the end of the flood to Abraham or 1849 total).

​

Genesis 12 tells us Abraham was 75 when god made his covenant with him (1924 years)

​

Galatians 3 says that the Exodus happened 430 years after the covenant (2354 years).

---

So lets comment on YOUR topic:First the flood was in anno 1657, NOT 1557. You made a 100 year error.Second you conceeded already that Abraham was born when Terah was 130, after I proved it. So Abraham was born in anno 2009.Abraham was called from Ur 5 years before Terah died, but you imply the 430 years begin when Abraham left Haran. This is another mistake you made. The key text is Exodus 12:40. The sojurn began from Ur of the Chaldees, not leaving Haran. Here is the chronology after making the corrections:1657: Flood
2009: Abraham born
2079: Abraham called out of Ur of the Chaldees
2084: Abraham leaves Haran and goes to Canaan
2109: Isaac born when Abraham is 100, 30 years after leaving Ur.
2509: The Exodus.The link between Abraham and the Exodus is found in Gen. 15:13, wherein it is said that from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus will be 400 years.Now let's continue the chronology:2509: Exodus
2549: After 40 years entry into Canaan
2549: In the fall the Torah is read marking the start of the seven year torah reading cycle, which strangely enough synchronizes with the agricultural and land reform cycles beginning at creation.Proof: 2549/7 = 364 remainder 1. It is the first year of the cyle (i.e. the end of the seventh year, the start of the first).Jubilee Check: 2549/49 = 52 remainder 1. It is the first year of this cycle too.Now let's put your chrononlogy up to the test:
Your chronology: 2354 + 40 = 2394 for entry into Canaan, when Israel was told to begin counting cycles.
2394/7 = 342, i.e. the start of year 7. But Deut. 31:10 says the Torah was read at the "end of seven years"
Your chronology 2394/49 = 48 remainder 42. So this does not synchronize either.Like I said, the key to validating the Chronology is when the land reform and agricultural cycles work out correctly, so you are just plain wrong to dismiss it as "numerology".Let's now work out this subchronology:2109: Isaac born
2169: Jacob born
2299: Jacob goes to Egypt at age 130 in the 2nd year of the famine.Age-based chronology is synchronized to the spring year, while the agricultural cycle is synchronized to the fall year. So the second year of the famine is fall 2298 to fall 2299. Let us check this out:2298/7 = 328 remainder 2. So it is the second year of the agricultural cycle. So the whole seven years of plenty synchronize with the agricultural cycle and also the seven years of famine.
Finally, the year after the last year of famine, Joseph engaged in land reform. This year was 2304:2304/49 = 47 remainder 1. So the land reform is in the first year of the next land cycle.And additionally, Avodah Zarah 9b says to add 1 to the era of the second temple destruction to obtain the year no. of the agricultural cycle.The Second Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, and so is year 1. Let us add. 1 + 1 = 2. The second temple was destroyed in 4209/4210 of the world (i.e. A.D. 70). 4209/7 = 601 remainder 2.

---

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

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

Again, your argument applies equally well to Mt 1 as to Gen 5.

---

Incorrect, as shown previously. Now, back to the direct questions that were asked of you: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?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?

---

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.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

Jasher was not included in the Hebrew canon, as interesting as it may be.

---

I see you only half-read my post. Is there a particular reason for you responding to a post you haven't read?Let's point out the specific part you missed in Message 106: Indeed, I brought it up, but only to point out that despite it being amazingly supportive of my claim, I am not relying upon it.So again, I have to ask: Why are you responding to a post you didn't read?

---

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.

Daniel4140 responds to me:

quote:

---

What do you have the right to determine what is relevant to biblical chronology just because you started the thread?????

---

You answered your own question: It's my thread. I get to set the topic. Mysticism regarding the timeline of the Bible is inappropriate for this discussion. Take it elsewhere.Note, I have neither supported nor denied your claim regarding the significance of patterns in the timeline. I have simply asked for you to take your discussion elsewhere. You will see that this hardly prevents you from discussing it. In fact, it allows you to devote an entire thread to discussing that very thing you seem so eager to talk about.What's stopping you?Click on the "Forums" link, then on "Proposed New Topics," and then on the "New Topic" button. Create the opening post where you describe what it is you wish to discuss, and submit it. The admins will look it over, provide any advice on how to make it a good original post that may be needed, and start the thread.I'm asking nicely.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

We have NOT "established that in this particular instance that it does NOT indicate "ancestor" but rather "father."

---

Adam is not the father of Seth?
Seth is not the father of Enos?

quote:

---

This additional information does not change the meaning of "begat." Rather, it ADDS supplemental information to the ancestor-descendent relationships described by "begat."

---

You do realize that the first sentence is specifically contradicted by the latter, yes?Direct questions. Please answer yes or no:Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

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.