Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 166 of 316 (504469)
03-29-2009 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by jaywill
03-28-2009 6:22 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
For motives of God, I look for His declaration of what those motives are.
What makes you think you got it right?
quote:
Why don't you take what God says about His motives at face value?
What makes you think I don't? I'm not the one claiming to speak for god.
quote:
Why complain that no one knows the motives of God when God has stated the intention of His will in both Old and New Testaments?
Because every religion makes the same claim. You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you? You're trying to pull Pascal's Wager on me and you should know better by now.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by jaywill, posted 03-28-2009 6:22 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 03-29-2009 10:50 AM Rrhain has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 167 of 316 (504474)
03-29-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Rrhain
03-29-2009 3:59 AM


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?
That was a instance to which I was refering. I spoke generally not to that particular example which I would have to study. However here is an example of omitted generations in the biblcal counting.
"Thus all the generations from Abraham until David are fourteen generations, and from David until the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, fourteen generations." (Matthew 1:13)
Three units of fourteen generations writes Matthew.
Some Bible students inquire as to generations which were skipped. This geneology is divided into three ages of 14 generations each. That is 3 x 14 = 42 generations. However according to history it should be 45 generations.
"Why were certain generations skipped in the counting?" is the question some Bible students ask. And why does it appear that the numbers are munipulated to arrive at three ages of 14 generations each to make 42 generations?
The geneology records that "Joram begot Uzziah". However, 1 Chronicles 3:11-21 says "Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah". Azariah is Uzziah (2 Kings 15:1,13). Three generations - Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were omitted. Some teachers explain that this skipped in Matthew's counting was due to the evil marriage of Joram and the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, which corrupted Joram's descendents (2 Chronicles 21:5-6; 22:1-4). In accordance with Exodus 20:5, three generations of Joram's descendents were cut off from the geneology of Christ.
The geneology of Matthew records that "Josiah begot Jeconiah". However, 1 Chronicles 3:15-16 says "The sons of Josiah ... the second Jehoiakim ... and the son of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son." One generation, that of Jehoiakim, was omitted from Matthew's geneology of Christ. This must have been because Jehoiakim was made king by Pharoah of Egypt and collected taxes for Pharoah (2 Kings 23:34-35).
These two examples of skips suggest the God inspired counting to be done according to His priorities at times rather than typical human sense of history.
Some Bible teachers mention that Jeconiah was not reckoned as a king in Matthew's geneology, because he was born during the captivity and was a captive (2 Chron. 36:9-10). Jehoiakim is Jeconiah.
Matthew 1:12 says " ... Jeconiah begot Salathiel, and Salathiel begot Zerubbabel." But compare this to the record of 1 Chronicles 3:17-19 which says "The sons of Jeconiah ... Shealtiel [i.e. Salathiel] ... and Pedaiah ... and the sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel." The passage shows that Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, Salathiel's brother. Zerubbabel was not Salathiel's son but was his nephew, and he became his heir. Perhaps this was a case in accordance with Deut. 25:5-6.
Anway historically there were actually 45 generations Matthew spans. By deducting from these generations three cursed generations and one improper generation, and then adding David one by making David to close one generation and open another, thus making two generations related to him, the generation total to 42 divided into three ages of 14 generations each.
Probably David, as a strong type of Christ, is listed as terminating one age and initiating another. David terminates the age before the establishment of the kingdom of Israel, and initiates the kingdom age. That must be as a kingdom according to God's desire. In other words David "turns" the age. Christ as David's anti-type also "turns" the age - ending one age and bringing in a new one.
The number 40 in the Bible is often associated with trials, temptations, and sufferings (Heb. 3:9; Matt. 4:2; i Kings 19:8). Forty two signifies rest and satisfaction after trial. The children of Israel traveled through 42 stations before they entered the good land of rest. The millennial kingdom as a rest will come after the 42 months of the great tribulation in Revelation 13:4. The spiritual meaning of Matthew's 42 generations to Christ's birth may signal then that Christ came as the forty-second generation to be the rest and satisfaction of God's people.
The main point here is that the Holy Spirit in conveying to us God's word, counts the generations according to Divine priorities of times. So where some may see "mistakes" it might occur to them that they are mistaken in not seeing the counting through the eyes of God according to God's accounting - time based on His priorities.
You called Matthew's geneology a "scam". I don't see it as a scam. I want to hear from some other Bible students on why there would be some adjustment in the counting, and if it should shed light on God's priorities or spiritual lessons for us.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Rrhain, posted 03-29-2009 3:59 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 4:39 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 168 of 316 (504476)
03-29-2009 12:17 PM


I mentioned Bullinger's book assuming interested parties would go read a more exhaustive discussion of numbers in the Bible.
Here is one of his examples of accounting of time durations from the viewpoint of God's priorities:
He writes that God dealings with His people have to do with actual duration of time rather than wth specific dates. He sees great symbolic divisions of Israel's history as the times of God's dealing with them and marked with the same number. If we we confine ourselves to duration of years rather than the sucession of years and chronological dates some biblcal difficulties are solved.
He finds God's dealing with Israel can be measured out into four periods, each consisting of 490 (70 times 7) years.
The 1rst - From Abraham to the Exodus.
The 2nd - The Exodus to the Dedication of the Temple.
The 3rd - From the Temple to Nehemiah's from Babylon.
The 4th - From Nehiamiah to the Second Coming of Christ.
I will only write something here about two of these 490 year periods for space sake. Some years when the Israelites were not immediately governed over by God and His hand was removed, are deducted "and His people were without visible tokens of His presence with them."
From the birth of Abraham to the Exodus was actually (Gen. 12:4; 16:3; and 22:5) 505 years. But Bullinger sees each of the four epochs as consisting of 490 years each. By deducting 15 years while Ishmael was Abram's seed according to Abram and Sarai's plot, delaying the promised seed of God, you get (505 - 15) = 490 years.
Abraham was 75 years old when the promise (Gen. 12:4) was made to him. The Law was given 430 years after (Exodus 12:40; Gal. 3:17). But 430 and 75 make 505 years, or 15 over the 490. How are we to account for this gap of 15 years as forming part of the 505 years? The answer is that at Abraham's departure into Canaan (12:4) he was 75 years old, Ishmael was born 10 years after (Gen.26:3), therefore Abraham was 85 years old at Ishmael's birth. But he was 100 years old when Isaac was born (21:5). Therefore it follows that there were 15 years (100 minus 85 = 15) during which Ishmael was occupying and usurping the place of the "promised seed"; and 15 from 505 leaves 490. Here then we have ... first "gap" of 15 years."
From the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple, according to Acts 13:20 - "And after these things, for about four hundred and fifty years, He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet."
But the Israelites were:
In the Wilderness - 40 years.
Under the Judges - 450 years.
Under Saul - 40 years.
Under David - 40 years.
to Solomon's temple - 3 years.
(40 + 450 + 40 + 40 + 3) = 573 years.
The actual number of years was 573, according to Acts 13:20. But 1 Kings [6:1] says: "It came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of ISrael were come out of Egypt ... he began to build the house of the Lord." Therefore commentators immediately conclide that the book is wrong. It never seems to dawn on them that [they] can be wrong. But they are, because the number is ordinal, not cardinal, and it does not say four hundred and eighty years but "eightieth year." The 480th from or of what? Of the duration of God's dealings with His people, and deducting 93 years while He had "sold them" into the hands of others. Thus there is no discrepancy between 1 Kings [6:1] and Acts [12:20]. In the Acts the actual number of years is stated in a cardninal number; while in Kings a certain reckoning is made in an ordinal number, and a certain year in the order of God's dealings with His people is named. And yet by some, the inspiration of Acts 12:20 is immpugned, and various shilfts are resorted to, to make it what man things to be correct. The R.V. adopts an ancient punctuation which does not after all remove the difficulty; while in the Speaker's Commentary the words in 1 Kings 6:1 are printed within brackets, as though they were of doubtful authority."
The Captivities of the Israelites should be deducted from the time of the Judges:
These are under Cushan (Judges 3:8) - 8 years
Under Eglon (Judges 3:14) - 18 years
Under Jabin (Judges 4:3) - 20 years
Under Midianities (Judges 6:1) - 7 years
Under Philistines (Judges 13:1) - 40 years
(8 + 18 + 20 + 7 + 40 ) = 93 years.
490 years of the second epoch minus 93 years = 480 years. But we look for an additional 10 to make the theorized 490 year epoch.
We must add the years during which the Temple was in building, for the finishing of the house (i Kings 6:38) - 7 years.
We must add at least for the furnishing and ending of all the work (1 Kings 7:13-51) - 3 years.
(480 + 7 + 3) = 490 years.
The two examples of the (7 x 70) = 490 years of the first two great divisions of Bullinger's 490 durations of God's dealing with His people Israel.
J.N. Darby has a note on issue of Acts 12:20:
Acts 12:20 - "And after these things he gave [them] judges till Samuel the prophet, [to the end of] about four hundred and fifty years." ...
Where the computation begins is not stated. The judges were given after the land's being given by lot, and that order of things reached up to Samuel, to four hundred and fifty years, whenever the four hundred and fifty years began. It might be at the Exodus, and very probably so. But it is not that there were judges during all that time. Indeed, they were only raised up occasionally. I have no difficulty myself to the chronology, not withstanding the dicta of some. The main blunder of their computations lies in this: they have taken Eli and Samson as distinct periods from the Philistine oppression, whereas it is perfectly clear the Philistine oppression
included both. We have to go on to Mizpeh for the close."
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 4:50 PM jaywill has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 169 of 316 (504478)
03-29-2009 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Rrhain
03-28-2009 6:09 AM


quote:
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:
No, it is NOT the word "begat". It is the surrounding narrative.
quote:
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.
If Gen 4:25 had only said that Adam and/or Eve begat Seth, we would not know if this was a literal son or a distant descendent. The word "begat" is not what tells us that this is a literal son. There are two things in this verse which DO indicate literal sonship:
1) the fact that Adam or Eve named their son. (Repeated in Gen 5:3) They would not name a distant descendent.
2) the meaning of the name itself. "Seth" (or "shet") forms a word-play with "shat", "to appoint, grant." Eve saw Seth as a divine replacement for her literal son Abel who had been killed.
quote:
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.
That would be an acceptable translation. But it sounds somewhat awkward and stilted.
quote:
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?
...
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
As I have already mentioned in Message 83, there is a change in literary style between Gen 4 and Gen 5.
There is also a major literary break at Gen 5:1. Did you notice the word "toledot" ("the generations of" or "what became of") in Gen 5:1? This word is used as a literary divider between different main sections of Genesis. Gen 4 and Gen 5 are in different sections of the book.
Edited by kbertsche, : fixed typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2009 6:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 5:27 PM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 170 of 316 (504544)
03-30-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by jaywill
03-29-2009 10:50 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Three units of fourteen generations writes Matthew.
Irrelevant. Your reference is from Abraham to Jesus. The genealogy in question is from Adam to Noah. Do you have any evidence that any generations were skipped there? We've got ten: Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah.
The reason we know that there is a discrepancy in the list you gave is because we have a second list that is different (and again, notice how we say that the error is in skipping generations rather than adding them).
Where is the second list of the generations of Adam that indicates that generations were skipped? It doesn't matter that generations were skipped in other lists. We aren't looking at those lists...especially when they were written nearly two millennia later by a different religious group who had an agenda to try and prove the legitimacy of their new religious order.
Where is the evidence that Genesis 5 skipped generations?

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 167 by jaywill, posted 03-29-2009 10:50 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 171 of 316 (504545)
03-30-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by jaywill
03-29-2009 12:17 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
He finds God's dealing with Israel can be measured out into four periods, each consisting of 490 (70 times 7) years.
The 1rst - From Abraham to the Exodus.
The 2nd - The Exodus to the Dedication of the Temple.
The 3rd - From the Temple to Nehemiah's from Babylon.
The 4th - From Nehiamiah to the Second Coming of Christ.
Irrelevant. Your reference is from Abraham to Jesus. The genealogy in question is from Adam to Noah. Do you have any evidence that any generations were skipped there?
Where is the second list of the generations of Adam that indicates that generations were skipped? It doesn't matter that generations were skipped in other lists. We aren't looking at those lists...especially when they were written nearly two millennia later by a different religious group who had an agenda to try and prove the legitimacy of their new religious order.
Where is the evidence that Genesis 5 skipped generations?

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 168 by jaywill, posted 03-29-2009 12:17 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jaywill, posted 03-30-2009 6:57 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 174 by jaywill, posted 03-30-2009 7:16 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 172 of 316 (504548)
03-30-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by kbertsche
03-29-2009 2:24 PM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
No, it is NOT the word "begat".
You mean the text doesn't use "yalad"? Again, the primary meaning of "yalad" is in reference to a direct parentage. It can be used metaphorically to describe longer relationships but when referring to two individual people, "yalad" means to father (directly), not "ancestor."
Nobody says a father or mother "ancestors" a child.
quote:
It is the surrounding narrative.
And thus, we're back to the question I keep asking:
Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?
Let's add a few more:
Is Eve the mother of Cain?
Is Eve the mother of Abel?
Is Eve the mother of Seth?
The word used to describe the coming into existence of Cain, Abel, and Seth is "yalad." Eve does not "ancestor" her sons, she gives birth to them. The word used to describe the act of giving birth is "yalad." It is not an indication that she is some distant relative. It is an indication that she is their direct mother.
Context established.
What changed the context such that when the same word is used in the same manner with regard to the same people, it doesn't mean the same thing?
quote:
If Gen 4:25 had only said that Adam and/or Eve begat Seth, we would not know if this was a literal son or a distant descendent.
Since the primary meaning of "yalad" is direct parentage, you would have to explain why this wasn't the meaning. You have yet to explain why in any case, actually. Again, of the nearly 500 times "yalad" is used in the Bible, more than 400 of them are in reference to direct parentage. What's so special about this one? Where is the evidence?
quote:
They would not name a distant descendent.
So since Adam named Seth and Seth named Enos and Enos named Cainan and Cainan named Mahalaleel and Mahalaleel named Jared and Jared named Enoch and Enoch named Methuselah and Methuselah named Lamech and Lamech named Noah, that must mean they weren't named distant descendents, either.
And for all of these people, "yalad" is only word used to describe how they came into the world. Since "yalad" means a direct parentage, where is the evidence that it is being used metaphorically for everybody except Adam, Seth, and Enos? Nobody "ancestors" a child.
What changed the context such that when the same word is used in the same manner with regard to the same people, it doesn't mean the same thing?
quote:
quote:
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.
That would be an acceptable translation. But it sounds somewhat awkward and stilted.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that?
Are you seriously saying that "yalad" has "ancestor" as its primary meaning and not "giving birth"? More than 80% of its uses in the Bible meaning a direct parent relationship and somehow, everybody has missed that what it really means is to imply distant relationships, not direct ones?
Then we have nothing more to discuss.

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 169 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2009 2:24 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2009 10:23 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 179 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2009 11:11 PM Rrhain has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 173 of 316 (504549)
03-30-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Rrhain
03-30-2009 4:50 PM


Irrelevant. Your reference is from Abraham to Jesus. The genealogy in question is from Adam to Noah. Do you have any evidence that any generations were skipped there?
In the course of this discussion Matthew's geneology has been discussed also.
I did not promise you that I would only use your favorite section of Scriptures to talk about timelines. I said I would give examples of skipped time in biblical accounting.
My point is made regardless of your dismissal of it as being "irrelevant."
Where is the second list of the generations of Adam that indicates that generations were skipped? It doesn't matter that generations were skipped in other lists. We aren't looking at those lists...especially when they were written nearly two millennia later by a different religious group who had an agenda to try and prove the legitimacy of their new religious order.
Where is the evidence that Genesis 5 skipped generations?
Maybe I do. Maybe I do not.
If you examine what I said that I could provide you, there was no self imposed restriction or accepted limitation to only deal with Adam to Noah in Genesis. I told you that that I would have to study. I gave you examples as I said I would do.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 4:50 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 7:22 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 174 of 316 (504551)
03-30-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Rrhain
03-30-2009 4:50 PM


Where is the evidence that Genesis 5 skipped generations?
To tell the truth, I haven't considered it that much.
I gathered that a major reason for this debate has to do with the assumption that the Bible says the age of the universe is 6,000 years old.
I do not believe that the Bible allows us only to understand a 6,000 year old universe. But the logic that I would imploy to show that is not geneological.
To the point of the age of the universe, the geneology of Adam is not that important to me. What is important to me is that the Bible does have some intervals in timeline, skipped generations being only one instance of that as demonstrated above in Matthew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 4:50 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 7:25 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 175 of 316 (504552)
03-30-2009 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by jaywill
03-30-2009 6:57 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
In the course of this discussion Matthew's geneology has been discussed also.
And each time, I pointed out its irrelevancy. That Matthew skipped generations is irrelevant to the question of Genesis skipping generations.
Where is the second list of the generations of Adam that indicates that generations were skipped?
quote:
I did not promise you that I would only use your favorite section of Scriptures to talk about timelines.
Then you're off-topic. If you wish to discuss Matthew, start your own. This thread is about the timeline of the Bible and the genealogy found in Matthew doesn't enter into it.
quote:
Maybe I do. Maybe I do not.
Then take some time to figure it out and come back when you're ready to contribute to the topic of this discussion: Whether or not the Bible gives a timeline for when life, the universe, and everything was created.

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 173 by jaywill, posted 03-30-2009 6:57 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jaywill, posted 04-01-2009 7:54 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 176 of 316 (504553)
03-30-2009 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by jaywill
03-30-2009 7:16 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Where is the evidence that Genesis 5 skipped generations?
To tell the truth, I haven't considered it that much.
Then take some time to figure it out and come back when you're ready to contribute to the topic of this discussion: Whether or not the Bible gives a timeline for when life, the universe, and everything was created.
quote:
I gathered that a major reason for this debate has to do with the assumption that the Bible says the age of the universe is 6,000 years old.
Congratulations. You read the opening post. What made you think you should deviate from that topic? If you wish to discuss Matthew, start your own thread.
quote:
I do not believe that the Bible allows us only to understand a 6,000 year old universe.
So when the Bible says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, it doesn't really mean that?
quote:
To the point of the age of the universe, the geneology of Adam is not that important to me.
Since Adam was created only six days after the creation of the universe, how can that not be important?
quote:
What is important to me is that the Bible does have some intervals in timeline, skipped generations being only one instance of that as demonstrated above in Matthew.
But Matthew is irrelevant. We're talking about Genesis.
Where is the evidence that Genesis 5 skipped generations?

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 174 by jaywill, posted 03-30-2009 7:16 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jaywill, posted 04-01-2009 8:15 AM Rrhain has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 177 of 316 (504555)
03-30-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rrhain
03-30-2009 5:27 PM


Naming?
quote:
So since Adam named Seth and Seth named Enos and Enos named Cainan and Cainan named Mahalaleel and Mahalaleel named Jared and Jared named Enoch and Enoch named Methuselah and Methuselah named Lamech and Lamech named Noah, that must mean they weren't named distant descendents, either.
The text says that Adam and Eve named Seth (Gen 4:25; 5:3) and that Seth named Enosh (Gen 4:26). But where does it say the rest?
Note that it specifically does NOT say this in Gen 5. I see only one occurrance of the word "name" (shem) in any form. This occurs in Gen 5:3 (literally, "and he called the name of him Seth"). The fact that this phrasing is NOT repeated for the other generations is significant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 5:27 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 11:04 PM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 178 of 316 (504557)
03-30-2009 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by kbertsche
03-30-2009 10:23 PM


Re: Naming?
kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
The text says that Adam and Eve named Seth (Gen 4:25; 5:3) and that Seth named Enosh (Gen 4:26). But where does it say the rest?
They don't have names? The same verb, the same people, the same context, why does the meaning change?
quote:
The fact that this phrasing is NOT repeated for the other generations is significant.
No, it isn't. You do not "ancestor" a child. "Yalad" does not mean that. It means giving birth directly. That's why the verb used to describe Eve giving birth to Cain, Abel, and Seth is "yalad." That's why the verb used to describe the way Adam gave rise to Seth and the way Seth sired Enos is "yalad."
So how does the context change? How many times do I have to ask before you give 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2009 10:23 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2009 11:32 PM Rrhain has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 179 of 316 (504558)
03-30-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rrhain
03-30-2009 5:27 PM


"yalad"
quote:
Again, the primary meaning of "yalad" is in reference to a direct parentage. It can be used metaphorically to describe longer relationships but when referring to two individual people, "yalad" means to father (directly), not "ancestor."
No, the distant descendents are NOT a metaphorical use of the term. They are literal descendents.
The figurative/metaphorical uses of "yalad" refer to non-literal descendents. E.g. "of wicked; of Israelites, bringing forth wind (of vain efforts for deliverance); of Tyre as mother of her inhabitants; of Jerus., Isr. bearing disloyal children; Jerus. and Sam., as Oholibah and Oholah; of Babylon; of a day, as producing events." (from BDB Hebrew lexicon)
quote:
The word used to describe the coming into existence of Cain, Abel, and Seth is "yalad." Eve does not "ancestor" her sons, she gives birth to them. The word used to describe the act of giving birth is "yalad." It is not an indication that she is some distant relative. It is an indication that she is their direct mother.
No, the word "yalad" is much less specific than you want it to be. It is used in the OT of distant descendents as well as direct children, as you admit below:
quote:
Since the primary meaning of "yalad" is direct parentage, you would have to explain why this wasn't the meaning. You have yet to explain why in any case, actually. Again, of the nearly 500 times "yalad" is used in the Bible, more than 400 of them are in reference to direct parentage. What's so special about this one? Where is the evidence?
You have just admitted that there are a number of occurrances which are NOT direct parentage(!!) How can you be absolutely sure that Gen 5 does not include more cases of this?
quote:
And for all of these people, "yalad" is only word used to describe how they came into the world. Since "yalad" means a direct parentage, where is the evidence that it is being used metaphorically for everybody except Adam, Seth, and Enos? Nobody "ancestors" a child.
It does NOT always mean direct parentage, as you admitted above.
quote:
Are you seriously saying that "yalad" has "ancestor" as its primary meaning and not "giving birth"? More than 80% of its uses in the Bible meaning a direct parent relationship and somehow, everybody has missed that what it really means is to imply distant relationships, not direct ones?
The primary meaning of the verb "yalad" is "bear, bring forth, beget" (according to BDB). But this is not restricted to a literal father-son relationship; it can refer to any ancestor-descendent relationship. This is seen from the derivitive noun "walad", meaning "offspring, child." Here the first meaning is "offspring" (i.e. descendent), not literal child.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 5:27 PM Rrhain has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 180 of 316 (504559)
03-30-2009 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rrhain
03-30-2009 11:04 PM


Re: Naming?
quote:
They don't have names? The same verb, the same people, the same context, why does the meaning change?
Incorrect. The text does NOT use the same verb "shem" ("to name") for all of these generations. Show me any form of the verb "shem" ("to name") for anyone after Enosh. The text specifically does NOT say that Enosh named Kenan, Kenan named Mahalalel etc.
The point is not that they have names (which they obviously do). The question is who gave them their names; who named them. If Enosh is the one who named Kenan, Kenan has to be a direct son. But if the text does not specify this, Kenan could be a distant descendent, i.e. "Enosh begat (the line culminating in) Kenan."
quote:
So how does the context change? How many times do I have to ask before you give the evidence?
And how many times do I have to answer you before you address the data?
As I pointed out in Message 83:
It is clear that the narrative style of Gen 5 is different from that in Gen 4. The style changes from a straightforward narrative to a genealogy with a rigid, repetitive structure. This could be described as a slight change in genre.
Some scholars identify "genealogy" as a distinct genre, in which case the genre changes between Gen 4 and Gen 5.
And as I pointed out in Message 169:
There is also a major literary break at Gen 5:1. Did you notice the word "toledot" ("the generations of" or "what became of") in Gen 5:1? This word is used as a literary divider between different main sections of Genesis. Gen 4 and Gen 5 are in different sections of the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 11:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 03-31-2009 12:04 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024