The timeline of the Bible

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Answer: We know because of all the "motives" of God in the Bible this is never mentioned as one.

---

Oh, really? Oh, but that's too vague. OK...you want something more concrete. Just a few off the top of my head: Believe or go to hell.At any rate, you're still missing the point. It doesn't really matter what the book says. How can we be sure god isn't testing us, seeing who depends upon others to do their thinking for them and who relies upon the gifts god gave them to find their own way?

quote:

---

Now if you want to make up stuff and say "Aha. Here is God's motive" That's your problem. Isn't it?

---

No, for I am not speaking for god. I am simply questioning why you think you can.

quote:

---

Some of us intend to discover "motive" of the Divine Will by examining the Divine words.

---

What makes you think god wants you to?Now, back to the topic: Do you have any evidence that generations are skipped?

---

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:

---

There may be some paradoxes and even some apparent contradictions. What long book doesn't have some ?

---

Shouldn't the word of god be better than that? Shouldn't it not have any paradoxes or contradictions?

quote:

---

I don't think walking by faith and not by sight is "blind" following.

---

But you assume you know your faith is directed toward god. What makes you think you understand god's motives?

quote:

---

God doesn't "test" people to ek out what they have in their natural being.

---

Why not? What makes you think you can speak for god?

quote:

---

The whole "fickle tyrant" suspicion of God, is to me, kind of sick.

---

But who are you to say god isn't? When did you become god's spokesman?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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.