Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


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 181 of 316 (504560)
03-31-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by kbertsche
03-30-2009 11:32 PM


So how does the context change? How many times do I have to ask before you give the evidence? Same word, same people, same context. Why does it mean something different?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2009 11:32 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 182 of 316 (504658)
04-01-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Rrhain
03-30-2009 7:22 PM


And each time, I pointed out its irrelevancy. That Matthew skipped generations is irrelevant to the question of Genesis skipping generations.
I can understand that you only want people to defend perhaps some favored strawman of yours.
But my post contributes to the whole issue of timeline in the Bible.
If you get nothing from it, someone else might.
Where is the second list of the generations of Adam that indicates that generations were skipped?
I don't have to defend Ussher's way of pinpointing when creation occured.
Make a complaint with the moderators if you think no Bible readers should contribute to this discussion except they be here to defend Ussher's timeline.
I'd rather post something "irrelevant" (as seen by you) but would help some readers to see why your little pet peeve about Ussher's geneological calculations is no final blow to the Christian's concept of when creation occured.
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.
I discussed the concept of timeline in the Bible.
You're not the god of which way these threads turn and wind.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 7:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2009 2:36 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 183 of 316 (504662)
04-01-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Rrhain
03-30-2009 7:25 PM


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.
"In the beginning."
But Matthew is irrelevant. We're talking about Genesis.
Where is the evidence that Genesis 5 skipped generations?
You just told me:
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.
I talked about biblical timelines. Sometimes God ommited generations. And God records time for us often according to His priorities.
That's my input right now. Others may find it a useful contribution though you don't.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 03-30-2009 7:25 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2009 2:47 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 184 of 316 (504664)
04-01-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rrhain
02-14-2009 5:34 AM


I say that while the Bible does not give a specific date, it does give a specific timeline which, through a process of simple addition, we can use to come up with a total amount of time for the existence of life, the universe, and everything. If we can then hook this timeline on an actual date, we can then determine exactly how old everything is supposed to be.
Genesis 1 gives the six, literal, 24-hour days of creation from "the beginning" through to the creation of the first human.
Genesis 5 counts up the generations from the first human, Adam, to Noah which gives 956 years.
Well that's what Rrhain says.
The assumption is that everything about the history of the universe has to be in ONE PLACE in the Bible. If it is not all in Genesis it is not relevant. That's the position.
But everything about the history of the universe is not all in Genesis. And the first glimps in Genesis we see of anything created is in a state of waste and void.
Something was destroyed. How long it lay like that we are not told.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rrhain, posted 02-14-2009 5:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2009 3:04 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 185 of 316 (504711)
04-02-2009 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by jaywill
04-01-2009 7:54 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
I can understand that you only want people to defend perhaps some favored strawman of yours.
If you can show how Matthew tells us the generations of Adam, then you would have a point. Since you haven't you are off-topic. Start your own thread.
quote:
I don't have to defend Ussher's way of pinpointing when creation occured.
I didn't ask you to. You will note that I never mentioned Ussher. I simply asked if the numbers listed in the chronology (and specifically listing what they were) add up to about 6000, thus indicating that the Bible does, indeed, say that life, the universe, and everything are only about 6000 years old.
quote:
You're not the god of which way these threads turn and wind.
Since I'm the one that started the thread, that is precisely what I am. If you don't like it, start your own 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by jaywill, posted 04-01-2009 7:54 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 186 of 316 (504712)
04-02-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by jaywill
04-01-2009 8:15 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
"In the beginning."
Indeed, that's my point. The Bible starts "in the beginning" and not "later."
quote:
I talked about biblical timelines.
But you talked about an irrelevant timeline. The subject here is the chronology from the beginning. The genealogy listed in Matthew doesn't help us analyze that since we're going from Adam to Noah to Abraham to the covenant to the exodus to the foundation of the temple. David, Jesus, etc. don't really enter into it.
Now, do you have any evidence that the generations of Adam were incomplete and skipped some? Do you have a secondary list that has a different set of names? Do you have any evidence that indicates that the amount of time that passed from Adam to Noah cannot be determined by adding up the years listed in Genesis 5?
quote:
Sometimes God ommited generations.
Do you have any evidence that Genesis 5 was one of those times? The reason we conclude that there is an issue with the genealogy of Matthew (and again, how interesting that we claim that generations were skipped rather than added) is that we have a secondary list of generations that differs.
Where is the secondary list of generations of Adam?
Where is your evidence?
quote:
And God records time for us often according to His priorities.
So when the text says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, it isn't true? Adam wasn't 130? How can you tell?
Where is your 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 183 by jaywill, posted 04-01-2009 8:15 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jaywill, posted 04-03-2009 12:48 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 187 of 316 (504714)
04-02-2009 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by jaywill
04-01-2009 8:26 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
If it is not all in Genesis it is not relevant. That's the position.
Incorrect. After all, my timeline uses texts other than Genesis to determine the chronology.
My position is that a text that does not mention anything about the generations of Adam is of no use when trying to determine the generations of Adam. Let us assume that Matthew skipped generations. Great. How does that affect the listing of the generations of Adam? The reason why we know that Matthew has a discrepancy is because we have a secondary list from which Matthew deviates.
So where is the secondary list of the generations of Adam from which Gen 5 deviates?
Where is your evidence?
quote:
And the first glimps in Genesis we see of anything created is in a state of waste and void.
Indeed. That's because it was "the beginning" and thus nothing existed. That is, after all, what "waste and void" means. That is what "beginning" means. The universe starts at "the beginning" and not "later."
quote:
Something was destroyed.
Incorrect. There was nothing to destroy. If there were, then we wouldn't be at "the beginning" but rather would be "later." But the text specifically and directly describes the timeline as starting from "the beginning."
quote:
How long it lay like that we are not told.
Incorrect. It was no more than a day. A literal, 24-hour day. And we are told what happened on that day: Light was created, separating daylight from nighttime, and heaven was created. That is all that happened from "the beginning," which started from nothingness, to the end of the first day.
Of course, all that discussion is off-topic. Read the original post. If you want to discuss that, start your own 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jaywill, posted 04-01-2009 8:26 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jaywill, posted 04-03-2009 1:28 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 188 of 316 (504839)
04-03-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Rrhain
04-02-2009 2:47 AM


Indeed, that's my point. The Bible starts "in the beginning" and not "later."
You don't know how long ago "the beginning" was. If you claim that you do, many ancient readers of the Hebrew text would not agree with you. Many Christians do not agree either.
It is not necessary to claim a "Day Age" interpretation to recognize that you don't know. Even when the 7 days of Genesis 1 are typical 24 hour days, you still don't know when "the beginning" was.
But you talked about an irrelevant timeline.
I also talked about accounting of time from the Divine viewpoint with Divine priorities.
I demonstrated the same with Matthew's geneology and with years dropped from the time the Jews were under foreigners in the days of the Judges.
Taking the book of Genesis, the first calling of Abraham is not recorded. What is recorded in terms of Abraham's being called by God is his calling after he had been removed from Ur of the Chaldeas and settled temporarily in Haran. The previous calling of Abraham by God is indicated in the book of Acts and is not mentioned in Genesis.
So you do not have all the historical events concerning God's calling of Abraham in Genesis. Neither do you have all of the historical events related to God's creation of the universe in Genesis.
My reasons for saying this are not primarily geneological. And another thread could be opened for that and has in the past. But the point of assuming that you can pinpoint the year of creation is relevant to this thread.
The subject here is the chronology from the beginning. The genealogy listed in Matthew doesn't help us analyze that since we're going from Adam to Noah to Abraham to the covenant to the exodus to the foundation of the temple. David, Jesus, etc. don't really enter into it.
What helps some of us to realize that the Divine viewpoint according to Divine priorities will omit spans of time.
Now, do you have any evidence that the generations of Adam were incomplete and skipped some?
I haven't studied it. I don't know. I do know that spans of real time are sometimes omitted in the biblcal record because the Holy Spirit speak through the writers of time according to God's plans and God's priorities.
So when the text says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, it isn't true? Adam wasn't 130? How can you tell?
Whatever it says, the point remains that some places in Scripture record time not according to exhaustive secular mathematical precision but according to God's accounting of time that COUNTED in to His plans.
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 186 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2009 2:47 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2009 8:48 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 189 of 316 (504841)
04-03-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Rrhain
04-02-2009 3:04 AM


Indeed. That's because it was "the beginning" and thus nothing existed. That is, after all, what "waste and void" means. That is what "beginning" means. The universe starts at "the beginning" and not "later."
No. The two words used in Genesis 1:2 are paired together elsewhere in Scripture and when so indicated a divine overthrow of something.
The words used seprately do not always carry that meaning. But the play on words, something akin to topsy turvy is used to indicate an overthrow.
That overthrow of some previous system is not covered in Genesis.
Something was destroyed.
Rrhain
Incorrect. There was nothing to destroy. If there were, then we wouldn't be at "the beginning" but rather would be "later." But the text specifically and directly describes the timeline as starting from "the beginning."
It was after the beginning. Before the age of geology or Evolution theory some ancient Hebrew readers understood it so. Not only Christians saw that. Some Jewish rabbis used Genesis 1:2 to symbolize the destruction of the temple. At least they applied it in that way.
The Concordant Version, the Recovery Version, and Emphasized Bible translate Genesis 1:2 with "the earth became ...".
Hebrew translater August Dillman translated the passage as "But (then) the earth became waste..."
The Targum of Onkelos in reflecting some rabbinical interpretations of Genesis at end of the first and early part of the second century AD, speaks of the "The earth was tohu and bohu.... the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty."
The book of Revelation speaks of some horrible creatures unleased upon the surface of the earth in the very last days before the second coming of Christ. Some of us ask "When were these things created? Or when did they come into being?"
A pre-Adamic age which went terribly wrong in rebellion to God, and His subsequent judgment is the probable answer for these leftover mutations, if they be that. A pre-Adamic world would also account for the existence of a lying enemy of God's purpose lurking just outside of Adam's domain seeking to deceive man into joining him in revolt against God's eternal purpose.
Incorrect. It was no more than a day. A literal, 24-hour day. And we are told what happened on that day: Light was created, separating daylight from nighttime, and heaven was created. That is all that happened from "the beginning," which started from nothingness, to the end of the first day.
I see seven typical days of God's restoration and further creation.
The unspecified time from the beginning and the unspecified destruction of whatever preceeded the recovered earth allows for any amount of time to be assumed from the initial creation of the universe.
The first major hint in Genesis that some previous unrecorded events occured is the existence of an enemy and opposer to God in God's paradise.
I think most readers of the Bible probably have this as a first question: "What in the world is this lying serpent doing in what is suppose to be a paradise of God?"
Elsewhere in Scripture we learn of one created perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him. The ancient history of the enemy of God is not elaborated on in Genesis.
You may not believe this because you under appreciate the unity the revelation of the 66 books of the Bible. You assume that each book stands alone perhaps. Theologians speak of the "plenary" revelation of God. Sometimes the lock is in one place and the key is in another place.
It is tempting to want Genesis to tell us everything about the history of the universe. But the history is not all there. Something happened that caused a judgment which rendered the earth without form and void. These two words in the Hebrew used as a pair indicate judgment and overthrow.
Of course, all that discussion is off-topic. Read the original post. If you want to discuss that, start your own thread.
Maybe I will. Maybe I will find the Gap Theory discussions and bring them back up.
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 187 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2009 3:04 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Rrhain, posted 04-06-2009 3:31 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 190 of 316 (504876)
04-03-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jaywill
04-03-2009 12:48 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
You don't know how long ago "the beginning" was.
Um, you do realize that the entire point of this thread is that we do? That the Bible says so? That there are specific passages that mention specific periods of time that pass between events and that one of those events can be localized to an actualy known time which means that yes, we can say how long the beginning was.
According to the Bible, life, the universe, and everything is only about 6000 years old.
quote:
If you claim that you do, many ancient readers of the Hebrew text would not agree with you.
That must be why Jews, who surely know their own religion better than non-Jews, claim the year is only 5769. The Jewish calendar counts from the beginning.
Yes, I am well aware that there are "interpretations" of the text that try to extend this time period. For example, there are those who claim the "days" of Genesis 1 aren't literal, 24-hour days. I disagree as the text uses phrasing that specifically indicates literal, 24-hour days.
quote:
Even when the 7 days of Genesis 1 are typical 24 hour days, you still don't know when "the beginning" was.
Incorrect. They are the first days because they start at "the beginning," not "later." The earth doesn't come into existence until the third day, thus there is no previous version that was destroyed.
quote:
quote:
But you talked about an irrelevant timeline.
I also talked about accounting of time from the Divine viewpoint with Divine priorities.
Which is irrelevant.
quote:
I demonstrated the same with Matthew's geneology
Which is irrelevant.
quote:
and with years dropped from the time the Jews were under foreigners in the days of the Judges.
Which was incorrect. Even if we grant your false claim, that's still only 30 years. We're still only about 6000 years old.
quote:
Taking the book of Genesis, the first calling of Abraham is not recorded.
Incorrect. Genesis 12 describes it.
Genesis 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
quote:
What is recorded in terms of Abraham's being called by God is his calling after he had been removed from Ur of the Chaldeas and settled temporarily in Haran.
That is the calling. That is the covenant. When Galatians says that the exodus happened 430 years after the covenant, that is the event being referred to.
quote:
Neither do you have all of the historical events related to God's creation of the universe in Genesis.
Incorrect. The text says that the earth didn't exist in the beginning but instead was made on the third day. There was no previous version.
quote:
quote:
Now, do you have any evidence that the generations of Adam were incomplete and skipped some?
I haven't studied it. I don't know.
Then you might want to consider withdrawing until you have studied it and found the evidence you need to justify your claim.
Whether or not Matthew skipped generations is irrelevant. We aren't talking about Matthew. We're talking about Genesis 5. No matter how many other listings of generations skip some, that doesn't help us to determine if Gen 5 did.
quote:
But the point of assuming that you can pinpoint the year of creation is relevant to this thread.
It isn't an assumption. The text directly says: Six days before the creation of humans (well, technically five because humans were created on the sixth day.)
quote:
quote:
So when the text says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, it isn't true? Adam wasn't 130? How can you tell?
Whatever it says, the point remains that some places in Scripture record time not according to exhaustive secular mathematical precision but according to God's accounting of time that COUNTED in to His plans.
That isn't an answer. Let's try again, shall we?
So when the text says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, it isn't true? Adam wasn't 130? How can you tell?

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 188 by jaywill, posted 04-03-2009 12:48 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by kbertsche, posted 04-03-2009 9:39 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 192 by jaywill, posted 04-04-2009 8:28 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 193 by jaywill, posted 04-04-2009 11:32 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 191 of 316 (504879)
04-03-2009 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Rrhain
04-03-2009 8:48 PM


quote:
According to the Bible, life, the universe, and everything is only about 6000 years old.
False. What you really mean is, "According to Rrhain's literalistic and anachronistic interpretation of the Bible, life, the universe, and everything is only about 6000 years old."
quote:
Incorrect. The text says that the earth didn't exist in the beginning but instead was made on the third day. There was no previous version.
Nonsense. The text says no such thing. The "earth" is mentioned (and exists) in Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, BEFORE Day 1. The description of the third day makes absolutely NO mention of the "creation" or "making" of the earth; rather, it describes the separation of dry land from water:
God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear. It was so. God called the dry ground land and the gathered waters he called seas. God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:9-10)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2009 8:48 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Rrhain, posted 04-06-2009 3:36 AM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 192 of 316 (504892)
04-04-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Rrhain
04-03-2009 8:48 PM


Um, you do realize that the entire point of this thread is that we do?
Then the entire point is wrong. Do we need another thread to argue that? Your initial point is wrong.
That the Bible says so? That there are specific passages that mention specific periods of time that pass between events and that one of those events can be localized to an actualy known time which means that yes, we can say how long the beginning was.
Some expositors disagree that any gap or interval of time is indicated between verse 1 and 2 of Genesis. The language smoothly proceeds with no implied break in time, they would say. J. Pye Smith's comment is insightful:
1.) "... the first sentence is a simple, independent, all-comprehending axiom, to the effect: that matter, elementary or combined, aggregated only or organized, and dependent, sentient, and intellectual beings have not existed from eternity, either in self continuity or sucession, but had a beginning; that their beginning took place by the all-powerful will of one Being, the self-existent, independent, and infinite in all perfection; and that the date of that beginning is not made known."
2.) "That at a certain epoch, our planet was brought into a state of disorganization, detritus, or ruin, (perhaps we have no perfectly appropriate term) from a former condition."
3.) "That it pleased the Almighty, wise and benevolent Supreme, out of that state of ruin to adjust the surface of the earth to its now existing condition, the whole extending through the period of six natural days. "
John Harris similarly writes:
"On the whole, then, my firm persuasion is, that the first verse of Genesis was designed, by the Divine Spirit, to announce the absoute origination of the material universe by the Almighty Creator; and that it is so understood in other parts of Holy Writ: that, passing by an indefinite interval, the second verse describes the state of our planet immediately prior to the Adamic creation; and that the third verse begins the account of the six days' work."
Concerning the words "passing by an indefinite interval" it is necessary that even a definite interval is sometimes passed by in one breath in God's way of accounting.
I am called away for an errand. I am not finish this reply. I will continue latter. I will provide some examples relevant to the same idea in Genesis 1:1,2.
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 190 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2009 8:48 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Rrhain, posted 04-06-2009 3:42 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 193 of 316 (504902)
04-04-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Rrhain
04-03-2009 8:48 PM


Some expositors argue that a necessary connection of short time is implied by the opening word of the second verse "And the earth was waste and voide" Like you they see no possibility of an unspecified interval of time between verse 1 and 2.
However 1 Chronicles 11:1 opens in a similar grammatical way with a interval of seven years preceeding what follows after "[A]nd".
" ... therefore he [Jehovah] slew him, and transferred the kingdom to David the son of Jesse. (10:14)
And all Israel assembled themselves to David to Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh ... (11:1,2a)
The opening of Ezra 7:1 jumps over a time interval of 58 years:
"And [the Jews] held the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy; for Jehovah had made them joyful and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, to strengthen thier hands in the whole of the house of God, the house of Israel. (5:22)
Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes the kinf of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, ... went up from Babylon." (see Ezra 7:1-6)
The Scripture moves seemlessly over a period of 58 years.
It doesn't mean that nothing else happened in the intervening time.
In these examples the word translated our English And or Now opens a sentence or paragraph or even a chapter with no connection what ever with what went before.
The book of Ezekiel opens that way. "Now in the thirtieth year, ...".
Verse 2 of Genesis cannot be insisted upon to, timewise imediately follow, the event of verse 1.
Rrhain writes:
That must be why Jews, who surely know their own religion better than non-Jews, claim the year is only 5769. The Jewish calendar counts from the beginning.
I told you that we have records that some Jewish rabbis at the end of the first century and beginning of the second century AD understood a interval between Gen. 1:1 and 2. They wrote of the destruction of previous worlds by God. And on that account the earth was found tohu and bohu. The point here is that they were not Christian but Jewish rabbis. Paricularly these teachers were of the influence of Akba ben Joseph the president of the School of Bene Barek near Saffa. This man laid the basis of the Mishna. He was executed in 135 A.D. The quotation that I refered to is traditionally ascribed to one of his disciples, one Simeon ben Jochai.
As you can see this rabbi understood from reading the Hebrew of Genesis that previous worlds were destroyed by God rendering the earth without form and void in verse 2.
" ... These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty."
In his book The Legends of the Jews Louise Ginsberg put into continous narrative a compilation of Jewish traditions from ancient times, as far as possible in the original phrases and terms. In Volume 1 which covers the period from the Creation to Jacob, Ginsburg has this excerpt:
"Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several other worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours."
I do not insinuate that these traditions and legends carry the authority of the Bible. I only point out that some Jews held to a tradition most based on thier reading of the Scriptures, that previous worlds were overthrown by God before Adam was created.
Yes, I am well aware that there are "interpretations" of the text that try to extend this time period. For example, there are those who claim the "days" of Genesis 1 aren't literal, 24-hour days. I disagree as the text uses phrasing that specifically indicates literal, 24-hour days.
That is the Day Age interpretation which I am not defending because I also understand 7 typical solar days in Genesis 1.
But let us assume that you are correct. Let us assume the 6,000 years ago all the universe with all life was created. I have then some questions for your consideration:
1.) Where did a being come from who was diametrically opposed to God, who lied, who slandered God to Eve, tempting human beings to act independently from God. And that in the Edenic paradise God prepared for Adam.
Is the explanation of such a thing told you in Genesis before chapter 3?
Do you think it is not important to know where and why such a being was there ?
2.) If the prehistory of Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeas is not included in the chronology of Abraham's journeys by the writer of Genesis but if found elsewhere in the Scripture, is it possible that the pre-history a creature's rebellion against God is also found not in Genesis but elsewhere ?
3.) If God created the earth before He created the stars then why is the sequenced reversed in Zechariah 12:1?
"The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him."
Here we have the Creator stretching forth the heavens before laying the foundation of the earth. If there is nothing in the heavens it is difficult to imagine what it is that God "stretches forth". I cannot imagine Him stretching forth nothing against nothing.
Incorrect. They are the first days because they start at "the beginning," not "later." The earth doesn't come into existence until the third day, thus there is no previous version that was destroyed.
The dry earth appeared from underneath the water on the third day.
"And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so." (Gen. 1:9)
Before the earth was discribed in the condition of without form and void in 1:2 it was created.
Compare this with Psalm 104:5-9:
"He established the earth upon the foundations thereof, That it should not be removed for ever and ever.
With the deep a with a garment Thou didst cover it, above the mountains did the waters stand. At
At Thy rebuke they fled, and at Thy voice of Thy thunder they hasted away-
The mountains rose, the valleys sank-
To the place which Thou hadst established for them.
Thou hast set them a bound which they cannot pass, That they turn not again to cover the earth."
In this Psalm we also see the land beneath the waters being made to rise from them at the command of God. (Psa. 104:5-9)
Me:
and with years dropped from the time the Jews were under foreigners in the days of the Judges.
Rrhain:
Which was incorrect. Even if we grant your false claim, that's still only 30 years. We're still only about 6000 years old.
That comment was firstly - not specifically about creation date but intervals because God did not account some years. It was showed that your style of time measurement is not always the biblcal way according to God's importance put on time.
That comment was about span of 93 years and not 30.
Me:
Taking the book of Genesis, the first calling of Abraham is not recorded.
Rrhain:
Incorrect. Genesis 12 describes it.
Genesis 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
According to [b]Acts 7:2-3, God appeared to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeans an called him to "come out from your land and frm your relatives, and come into the land which I will show you."
This was God's first appearing and calling to Abraham. However, Abraham did not accept God's calling immediately but remained in Ur for some time. After the death of Haran (the brother, not the place of course Gen. 12:28 , God sovereign;u caused his father Terah, to bring the family from Ur to Haran (the place). Therefore it was not Abraham but Abraham's father, Terah, who took the initiativee to leave Ur.
Now in Genesis 12:1 we see God adding in this call that Abraham should leave not only his land and relatives but "your father's house".
This calling of Abraham was after the death of his father Terah in Haran and not in Ur - "And the days of Terah were two hundred five years, and Terah died in Haran."
First calling is in Acts 7:1 - ... The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, BEFORE HE DWELT IN HARAN, [my emphasis] and said to him, "Come out from your land and from your relatives, and come into the land which I will show you."
Then he came forth from the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran. An from there, after his father died (Gen. 11:31), He removed him into this land, in which you now dwell." (Acts 7:1-4)
So we know that Genesis 12:1 is the subsequent call by God for Abraham to leave also father's house, who died there in Haran.
Abraham was called before he dwelt in Haran in Ur and while he was in Haran after the death of his dad.
In other words, Abraham apparently dragged his feet and God had to remove family members to get the procrastinating patriarch to obey. God also had to work sovereignly to remove him to get him to where he wanted him.
The call of Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeans is not recorded in Genesis.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is recorded in terms of Abraham's being called by God is his calling after he had been removed from Ur of the Chaldeas and settled temporarily in Haran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the calling. That is the covenant. When Galatians says that the exodus happened 430 years after the covenant, that is the event being referred to.
I'll come back to this point latter.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither do you have all of the historical events related to God's creation of the universe in Genesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. The text says that the earth didn't exist in the beginning but instead was made on the third day. There was no previous version.
That directly contradicts the text. The earth was created in the beginning.
Where does it say it was created on the third day? It appeared out from underneath the waters on the third day.
And I previously refered to Psalm 104 which strongly implies the same thing.
That isn't an answer. Let's try again, shall we?
So when the text says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, it isn't true? Adam wasn't 130? How can you
You can try 100 times. It is irrelevant to your erroneous assumption that the Bible allows us in ANY guise to pinpoint when the universe was created whether 6,000 years ago or 7,000 years ago or 10,000 or 100,000 or a many millions or billions of years ago.
What you can insist on is that it all had a BEGINNING. And that was caused by an all powerful God.
How old Adam was when Seth was born has no effect on this unspecified interval of time when the earth was rendered without form and void. And I might add that if the earth was not created until the third day how then could it exist in a state of without form and void ?
Why would it be necessary for God to gather the waters if all He needed to do was create land in the waters as land masses?
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 190 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2009 8:48 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 04-06-2009 3:50 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 194 of 316 (504953)
04-06-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by jaywill
04-03-2009 1:28 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
The two words used in Genesis 1:2 are paired together elsewhere in Scripture and when so indicated a divine overthrow of something.
Do you have any evidence that this is relevant to Gen 1:2?
quote:
But the play on words, something akin to topsy turvy is used to indicate an overthrow.
Incorrect. The use of "tohuw" and "bohuw," especially together, is not indicative of overthrow but rather of non-existence, very much akin to the Greek use of "chaos." It is a way to describe nothingness itself.
We've been over this before.
Of course, all that discussion is off-topic. Read the original post. If you want to discuss that, start your own thread.
quote:
The first major hint in Genesis that some previous unrecorded events occured is the existence of an enemy and opposer to God in God's paradise.
Incorrect. The serpent is just a serpent. Remember, Genesis was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context. There is no such thing as the devil in Judaism. There is no "enemy" or "opposer." Even the adversary in the story of Job is an agent of god, not some sort of antithesis to god.
Of course, all that discussion is off-topic. Read the original post. If you want to discuss that, start your own thread.
quote:
It is tempting to want Genesis to tell us everything about the history of the universe.
And since I'm not using only Genesis to determine the timeline, one wonders why you're bringing this up.
quote:
These two words in the Hebrew used as a pair indicate judgment and overthrow.
Incorrect. "Tohuw" and "bohuw," especially when used together, do not refer to overthrow, judgement, or anything else. They instead refer to nothingness itself, complete and utter non-existence.
We've been over this before.
Of course, all that discussion is off-topic. Read the original post. If you want to discuss that, start your own 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by jaywill, posted 04-03-2009 1:28 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jaywill, posted 04-06-2009 3:16 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 199 by kbertsche, posted 04-06-2009 8:28 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 195 of 316 (504954)
04-06-2009 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by kbertsche
04-03-2009 9:39 PM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
quote:
According to the Bible, life, the universe, and everything is only about 6000 years old.
False.
Since you have provided no justification for your claim, the only conclusion is that you're talking out of your ass. You keep trying to claim that this is "anachronistic," but you continue to fail to provide any justification.
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient. You need to provide the evidence that the genealogy of Adam is something other than direct, father/son lineage considering that the genealogy come straight off a description of direct father/son lineages and uses the exact same words attached to the exact same people.
Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?
quote:
The "earth" is mentioned (and exists) in Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, BEFORE Day 1.
Indeed, to specifically say that god created it since it didn't exist.
But, that is off topic. Please start your own 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by kbertsche, posted 04-03-2009 9:39 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by kbertsche, posted 04-06-2009 8:45 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024