The timeline of the Bible

kbertsche respond to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Direct questions. Please answer yes or no:
Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

​

Already affirmed multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 82), Re: Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 62), and Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 57) until you understand them.

---

I do not see either the word "yes" or "no" in any of those posts.What I do see, however, is you contradicting yourself. Message 110: So here you say that no, Adam is not the father of Seth.But in Message 62, you say the opposite: So here you say that yes, Adam is the father of Seth.Which is it? The questions are very simple. I don't know why you write paragraphs when a simple yes or no will suffice: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.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

You imply that Matthew ACCIDENTALLY left out these generations

---

"Accidentally"? I said no such thing. I simply said he got it wrong. There are plenty of reasons why someone may get something wrong.

quote:

---

Did Matthew omit generations accidentally or intentionally?

---

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.Now, back to the simple questions you seem to be unable to answer: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.

kbertsche respond to me:

quote:

---

Already affirmed multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 82), Re: Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 62), and Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 57) until you understand them.

---

I do not see either the word "yes" or "no" in any of those posts.What I do see, however, is you contradicting yourself. Message 110: So here you say that no, Adam is not the father of Seth.But in Message 62, you say the opposite: So here you say that yes, Adam is the father of Seth.Which is it? The questions are very simple. I don't know why you write paragraphs when a simple yes or no will suffice:Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

quote:

---

Protasis already denied multiple times, in which case apodosis does not logically follow.

---

Oooh! Such big words! Too bad you don't know what they mean. I asked you to explain the consequent you were affirming.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.

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.

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.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

But it is not the word "begat" (yalad) that establishes Adam as the literal father of Seth in Gen 4

---

Yes, it is:כה וַיֵּדַע אָדָם עוֹד, אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת: כִּי שָׁת-לִי אֱלֹהִים, זֶרַע אַחֵר--תַּחַת הֶבֶל, כִּי הֲרָגוֹ קָיִן.
va.ye.da a.dam od et-ish.to va.te.led ben va.tik.ra et-she.mo shet ki shat-li e.lo.him ze.ra a.kher ta.khat he.vel ki ha.ra.go ka.yin:
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth: 'for God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him.כו וּלְשֵׁת גַּם-הוּא יֻלַּד-בֵּן, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ; אָז הוּחַל, לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה.
u.le.shet gam-hu yu.lad-ben va.yik.ra et-she.mo e.nosh az hu.khal lik.ro be.shem a.do.nai:
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh; then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.This isn't the only use of "yalad" to refer to direct birth in Gen 4:א וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה.
ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-a.do.nai:
And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.[for some reason, the Hebrew is refusing to display for this one passage and I don't want to transliterate it into escape sequences]
va.to.sef la.le.det et-a.khiv et-ha.vel va.ye.hi-he.vel ro.e tson ve.ka.yin ha.ya o.ved a.da.ma:
And again she bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.All of these passages use "yalad" to mean a direct birth. So since we've established the context of "yalad" to mean a direct birth, and since the most common meaning of "yalad" is a direct birth, you're going to have to explain why the context has changed in the space of two sentences. What is it about saying that god blessed the generations of Adam that changes the context?

quote:

---

it is the descriptions of events in the rest of the narrative.

---

The only word used to describe the emergence of the new person into the world is "yalad." Eve "bore" ("yalad") Cain. Eve "bore" ("yalad") Abel.

quote:

---

The word "begat" means "ancestor" BOTH in Gen 4 and in Gen 5.

---

Incorrect. The only word used to describe the various people involved in Genesis 4 is "yalad." Nobody, not even you, seems to think this means that Cain and Abel were distant great-grandsons of Adam and Eve. Instead, they were direct offspring. And the word used to describe how they came into being is "yalad" because "yalad" means to give birth to.By your logic, you are saying that these passages should more correctly be translated as "she conceived and 'ancestored' Cain," "she 'ancestored' his brother Abel," "she 'ancestored' a son," "to him also there was 'ancestored' a son." Hebrew does not use "yalad" in this way. You do not "ancestor" a child. You give birth, you sire, or to use an older, more poetic way of speaking in English, you "beget." Of the 498 times "yalad" is used in the Bible, over 400 of them are in reference to direct parentage of a child. Fewer than 25 refer to "bringing forth" in a more metaphorical sense.

quote:

---

There is no change in meaning.

---

And you wonder why I keep asking you if Adam was the father of Seth and if Seth was the father of Enos. If there is no change in meaning, then the description of the relationships between the people in Gen 4 is carried over into Gen 5 because a context has been established.Since Adam is the father of Seth and since Seth is the father of Enos and since the exact same words are used without any change of context, this necessarily means that Jared is the father of Enoch, not some distant relative.Jared did not "ancestor" Enoch.

---

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:

---

Matthew's usage gives us information about how Hebrew cultures viewed genealogies.

---

Matthew was written nearly two millennia after Genesis. What sort of "information" could a Greek of the time have told us about ancient Hebrews?

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

Of course. Why is this relevant?

---

Because Matthew was writing in Greek from a perspective of how Greek describes the world. Now, I am of the opinion that any idea can be expressed in any language, but certain concepts need to be worked. You can't just take a translation from Hebrew into English and a translation from Greek into English, especially when those translations are trying to be poetical, and declare them to be referring to the same things simply because the words are the same.Of course, you realize that you are shooting down your own argument, yes? Since the English term used in both is specifically referencing direct parentage of father to son in both places, then that means the point of the passage is to show direct parentage of father to son. "Begat" in English doesn't mean "ancestor," certainly not as an active verb. You do not "ancestor" a child in English. If you want to describe a non-direct relationship, you would use another phrasing.So are you saying the English translations of the Bible that we have that use English words that directly and specifically indicate father/son relationships among the people involved are incorrect?

quote:

---

Do you realize that the OT had been translated into Greek

---

Indeed...and not very well. The Septuagint has many problems. It adds verses wholesale to the text.

quote:

---

Do you realize that the Greek word for "begat" in Gen 5 (gennaoo) is the same word used by Matthew in Mt 1?

---

Indeed. And it's used in Gen 4 to describe Seth fathering Enos. You do realize this shoots down your claim, though, yes? "Γενναω" is very strongly tied to fathers having children, not "ancestoring."

quote:

---

Note the word "similar". This does not mean "identical".

---

Let us not play dumb. Do you really think two cultures separated by nearly two millennia are going to be "similar"?

---

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:

---

I didn't notice any passage "threatening" eternal damnation because someone scratched their head at some of the geneological information, trying to add up years.

---

Thus showing that you completely missed the point.Hint: It's not about specific interpretations of individual phrases within a book. It's about something much larger than that.Bonus hint: There are people who have never heard of your god.

quote:

---

If you take the book "seriously" could you point out these threats?

---

Let's not play dumb and pretend that the Bible does not speak of being cast into hell.

quote:

---

Where is the demand or command to not question geneological information in the Bible upon pain of eternal damnation?

---

I am asking you nicely to not play dumb.

---

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:

---

I don't think I missed your point. I think some kind of bitterness in you is coming through in your sarcastic and exagerated caricature of divine judgment and salvation.

---

And thus, you miss the point again.Hint: When was the last time god was involved?

quote:

---

IE. in essence you are saying - "God is so harsh, that if I don't blindly accept these numbers as part and partial of believing the Bible, I am threatened with eternal damnation."

---

Incorrect.Hint: What are my statements in response to?

quote:

---

Now you are complaining, ie. in essence, "Geneological puzzles have little to do with it. God is eager to damn those who never heard of your god."

---

Incorrect.Hint: Remember that the question has to do with people who think they know god's motives. Is this really about god?

quote:

---

But let me ask you this. If I could show you why I believe, from Scripture, something perhaps radical in evangelical circles, ... if I could show you that some people will live forever who were not "born again" would that have any effect on your attitude of the "too harsh, too eager to damn" God ?

---

No, because my attitude has never entered into it. This isn't about what I think.

quote:

---

(more to topic of the thread,) yes, there are some years left out in the accounting in some passages.

---

And your evidence of this is what, precisely? Chapter and verse, please. The text provides specific spans of years between events. If you're saying that something has been skipped, then you're going have to show where and why.

quote:

---

If there are some years apparently dropped, some of us ask the question "Why were these years not accounted for?"

---

"If"? OK...where's the evidence? I need more than "Bullinger says so."

---

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:

---

Some people are going to be punished in eternal perdition.

---

Really? You know god's motives so well that your opinion can be substituted?

quote:

---

But neither should you play a fickle Judge who is totally unreasonable wanting "blind" following.

---

Who said that was my opinion? I don't recall saying I could speak for god.

quote:

---

But I didn't allow your exagerated caricature to pass without a question of "Where is That?" I note that you didn't show us where.

---

Does "Pascal's Wager" ring a bell?Now, back to the topic. Where do you find evidence that time has been skipped? When the text says that Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, he wasn't? He was older?Where is the evidence?

---

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.