The timeline of the Bible

Which is exactly my point. If they're willing to skip one person, why wouldn't they skip all of them? The story would be greatly condensed and would be infinitely more rememberable to a largely illiterate group of people to say Adam begat Seth who begat a line of men resulting in Abraham.

quote:

---

Why does it matter why? And even more importantly, why does it matter what I think about why? The only thing that matters is that the Bible contradicts itself

---

1) You have given two different answers which seem to be inconsistent. So which is it? Did Matthew intentionally omit names or not?
2) If Matthew intentionally left names out and still used the word "begat", this implies that he did not view "begat" as implying a literal father-son relationship. This supports my claims regarding Hebrew genealogies.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

Please re-read Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 57) until you understand it and find the word "yes".

---

So if Adam is the father of Seth, how can anything in Genesis 5 mean anything other than that? He's not just the "ancestor," he's the father. We've established context that Adam is the father of Seth. What changed the context?

quote:

---

1) The wording of Gen 5 does not mean that Adam is the literal father of Seth. (my position)

---

But you just said he was.Which is it?

quote:

---

My statements in Message 110 are completely consistent with my affirmation that Adam is the literal father of Seth.

---

But you just said he wasn't.Which is it?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.

Perdition responds to me:

quote:

---

if they're going to skip some generations, why not skip all of them until they get to someone who did something worth mentioning.

---

But where is your evidence that anybody was skipped?Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

quote:

---

One of those is misdirection, I will deliberately use a vague term and imply what it means, only to show later that the implication was incorrect.

---

But eventually you reveal the misdirection, yes? Where is your evidence that there was any?Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

quote:

---

But arguing that the context makes the meaning of begat as obvious and set in stone as you're arguing is pushing against many centuries of writing style.

---

Says who? Where in the text do you find the justification for your claim?Be specific. Chapter and verse.

---

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:

---

Did Matthew intentionally omit names or not?

---

Why does it matter? The only thing that matters is that Matthew gets the list wrong.

quote:

---

If Matthew intentionally left names out and still used the word "begat"

---

Um, you do realize that the text of Matthew is not the same language as the text of Genesis, yes?And the reason that we know names were left out is because we have other authors who have a different list. Do you have any indication anywhere that names were left out of the geneaology of Adam? It's all well and good to say that that passage over there has gaps, but what evidence do you have that this passage over here has them?Chapter and verse, please. Where's the second genealogy of Adam that lists other names?

---

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:

---

If they're willing to skip one person, why wouldn't they skip all of them? The story would be greatly condensed and would be infinitely more rememberable to a largely illiterate group of people to say Adam begat Seth who begat a line of men resulting in Abraham.

---

Good question. Perhaps they were trying to make it match the Sumerian King List? Or perhaps both genealogies stem from an earlier common source?The Sumerian King List has 8 generations before the Flood, while Gen 5 has 10 generations, so they would seem to differ. But as Walton says, "It should be noted that WB 444 [the Sumerian King List] does not include the flood hero, nor does it suggest that it begins with the first man."* If Adam and Noah are likewise omitted from Gen 5, the two genealogies have the same number of generations.* John Walton, "The Antediluvian Section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5," Biblical Archaeologist 44 (1981) 207.

quote:

---

So if Adam is the father of Seth, how can anything in Genesis 5 mean anything other than that? He's not just the "ancestor," he's the father. We've established context that Adam is the father of Seth. What changed the context?

---

You are claiming that since Adam is established as the literal father of Seth in Gen 4, the biblical writers are not allowed to call him the ancestor of Seth in Gen 5??

quote:

---

My statements in Message 110 are completely consistent with my affirmation that Adam is the literal father of Seth.

But you just said he wasn't.

---

False. Please re-read Message 133, Message 128, Message 113, Message 110, Message 82, Message 77, Message 62, Message 61, and Message 57 until you understand them.

quote:

---

Why does it matter? The only thing that matters is that Matthew gets the list wrong

---

It matters for two reasons:
1) You have given two different answers which seem to be inconsistent. I do not understand your position. Did Matthew intentionally omit names or not?
2) If Matthew intentionally left names out and still used the word "begat", this implies that he did not view "begat" as implying a literal father-son relationship. This supports my claims regarding Hebrew genealogies.

quote:

---

Um, you do realize that the text of Matthew is not the same language as the text of Genesis, yes?

---

Of course. But the cultures of the authors were very similar and Matthew knew of the Genesis genealogies.

Genesis 12:1ff does not say the covenant was made at that time. It was only reaffirmed. Therefore, there is no mistake. The 430 years dates from when Abraham was 70, 5 years before Terah died, and the 400 years from when Abraham was 100. That's exactly 30 years difference, and not 25 as you have it.You are just assuming that the covenant was first made then so that YOU can SAY there is a mistake. Is that so you can serve the lord of lies?

quote:

---

But there are more than four generations mentioned: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amramn, and Moses.

---

But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.What means "they"? Can you read? "They" refers to the generations that went to Egypt to dwell.1. Jacob
2. Levi
3. Jochebed (daughter of Levi, mother of Moses)
4. MosesThat's your four generations. And that's no mistake. The LORD tells the truth. The lord of lies says there are mistakes.Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. No one counts 9 months from conception in Biblical age-based dating. You only assumed this so that there is a mistake.Anyway, it works out 2108/2109 is the year of land reform (Jubilee), overlapping both Abraham's 99th year and his 100th year. I suppose you forgot that Isaac was a spring baby? I suppose you didn't think the agricultural year began the previous fall?
And I don't think it dawned on you that God made the land covenant with Abraham that year?Any way it's clear enough that you only do proper math when it suits you and fuzzy math the rest of the time.

---

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

You're missing what I'm saying. I AGREE WITH YOU. I just think you're argument isn't quite as strong as you're making it seem.I have no evidence that generations were skipped. I'm saying, IF they skipped some, why didn't they skip all? It's a point on your side. Yes, I do. That's because I think I'm not bad at writing. I have seen no evidence that the writers of the Bible were very competent.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

You are claiming that since Adam is established as the literal father of Seth in Gen 4, the biblical writers are not allowed to call him the ancestor of Seth in Gen 5??

---

No.I am claiming that since Adam is established as the literal father of Genesis just four sentences ago and that Seth is established as the literal father of Enos just three sentences ago, then a context has been established and any claim that this context has changed is going to require more justification than bald assertion. After all, the words used right now are the same words used just ten seconds ago so if we are to understand them to mean something different now, then there will have to be a change in context to let us know that we don't mean that anymore.Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in describing how god blessed the generations of Adam that changes it? How? If we call Adam the father of Seth just moments ago, how does using the same words not mean Adam is the father of Seth? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

My statements in Message 110 are completely consistent with my affirmation that Adam is the literal father of Seth.

---

​

But you just said he wasn't.

---

​

False.

---

Except you just did it again. You're expressing shock and amazement that Gen 5 is treating Adam as Seth's father.Is Adam Seth's father or not? If he is, then why doesn't a phrase that uses the same words as the passage that we turn to in order to establish Adam as Seth's father not indicate fatherhood?

---

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:

---

You have given two different answers which seem to be inconsistent.

---

That's because there are lots of possible reasons why. I am not invested in the reasons why, my argument does not depend upon the reasons why, and therefore I am free to invoke them all. For all we know, the original text of Matthew got it right but it was later transcribers that screwed it up. After all, it isn't like we have the originals of any of this stuff.

quote:

---

Did Matthew intentionally omit names or not?

---

Why does it matter? The only thing that matters is that Matthew gets the list wrong.Suppose it was intentional. How does that affect our reading of Genesis? The reason we might be claiming that it was intentional is because we have another source that contradicts Matthew and has extra names (and isn't it interesting that we're claiming Matthew dropped the names rather than the other list inserted them). OK...so is there any reason to suspect this of Genesis? Do we have another genealogy of Adam that would indicate names have been dropped? No? Then what is the justification for claiming names have been dropped?Suppose it was accidental. How does that affect our reading of Genesis? The reason we might be claiming that it was accidental is because we have another source that contradicts Matthew and has extra names. OK...so is there any reason to suspect this of Genesis? Do we have another genealogy of Adam that would indicate names have been dropped? No? Then what is the justification for claiming names have been dropped?

quote:

---

If Matthew intentionally left names out and still used the word "begat"

---

Um, you do realize that Matthew wasn't written in English, yes?

quote:

---

this implies that he did not view "begat" as implying a literal father-son relationship.

---

No, it doesn't. Especially given the context of Matthew trying play some numerological games on us.

quote:

---

But the cultures of the authors were very similar

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Assuming that the Mosaic authorship of Genesis is correct, this would put it at being written around 1500 BCE (and that's ignoring the fact that the Torah was oral history before that).Matthew was written sometime in early-to-mid second century CE.Are you seriously claiming that culture didn't change over the intervening 1600 years?

quote:

---

and Matthew knew of the Genesis genealogies.

---

So why do the Christian texts in general and Matthew in specific misquote it so often?

---

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:

---

Genesis 12:1ff does not say the covenant was made at that time. It was only reaffirmed.

---

Justification, please. Assertion is not sufficient. The text says something quite different:

quote:

---

The 430 years dates from when Abraham was 70

---

The text says something quite different:

quote:

---

You are just assuming that the covenant was first made then so that YOU can SAY there is a mistake. Is that so you can serve the lord of lies?

---

Yes, that must be it. I must be a devil-worshipper. Oh, and all those Jews who also claim that the covenant was when Abraham was 75 because that's when he left at god's command must be devil-worshippers, too.Wait...there is no devil in Judaism. There's a conundrum.

quote:

---

What means "they"?

---

"They": Third person plural pronoun whose antecedents are persons previously referred to.

quote:

---

"They" refers to the generations that went to Egypt to dwell.

​

1. Jacob
2. Levi
3. Jochebed (daughter of Levi, mother of Moses)
4. Moses

---

Incorrect. It refers to the generations of Abraham. After all, god is talking to Abraham: But the generations of Abraham to the deliverance is more than four: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amramn, and Moses.

quote:

---

The LORD tells the truth.

---

Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not the lord but rather you?

---

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.

Perdition responds to me:

quote:

---

You're missing what I'm saying. I AGREE WITH YOU. I just think you're argument isn't quite as strong as you're making it seem.

---

No, I get that you're agreeing with me. I just think that my argument is as strong as I'm making it seem.

quote:

---

I have no evidence that generations were skipped.

---

Then what possible justification is there to claim that they had? You're saying my argument is weak but you haven't brought up any indication that there is a problem.

quote:

---

I'm saying, IF they skipped some, why didn't they skip all? It's a point on your side.

---

Actually, no. The claim I am making is that Genesis gives a timeline that lets us know how long existence has existed and that said timeline is about 6000 years old. If generations have been skipped, then there is no timeline.I'll be happy to accept that, but I need a reason for it.

quote:

---

I have seen no evidence that the writers of the Bible were very competent.

---

Well, I'll give you that. When people bring up Pascal's Wager, I often point out that it assumes people understand god's motives. How can we not be sure that god isn't testing us, seeing who will blindly follow a poorly constructed, self-contradictory book simply because the book threatens them with eternal damnation if they don't as opposed to those who find their own way, even if they make mistakes along the way.But for this thread, I'm taking the book sincerely. Is there a reason to think generations were skipped in Genesis 5?

---

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:

---

I am claiming that since Adam is established as the literal father of Genesis just four sentences ago and that Seth is established as the literal father of Enos just three sentences ago, then a context has been established and any claim that this context has changed is going to require more justification than bald assertion. After all, the words used right now are the same words used just ten seconds ago so if we are to understand them to mean something different now, then there will have to be a change in context to let us know that we don't mean that anymore.
...
Is Adam Seth's father or not? If he is, then why doesn't a phrase that uses the same words as the passage that we turn to in order to establish Adam as Seth's father not indicate fatherhood?

---

But it is not the word "begat" (yalad) that establishes Adam as the literal father of Seth in Gen 4, it is the descriptions of events in the rest of the narrative. Both you and I are sure of this due to the extended narrative, not due to the word "begat". The word "begat" means "ancestor" BOTH in Gen 4 and in Gen 5. There is no change in meaning. The rest of the Gen 4 narrative does not modify the meaning of "begat"; it provides additional information not conveyed by "begat" either in Gen 4 or in Gen 5. This has already been explained in Message 113.

quote:

---

Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in describing how god blessed the generations of Adam that changes it? How? If we call Adam the father of Seth just moments ago, how does using the same words not mean Adam is the father of Seth? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

---

Already addressed multiple times. Please re-read Message 128, Message 110, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.