The timeline of the Bible

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

No, this is the thread to do it. However, your attempts to bring Matthew into it are off topic as they do not provide any information regarding how long things have been around. Matthew does not tell us that when Genesis says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, that it really means something else.Are you saying that when Genesis 5 says Adam was 130 when he sired Seth, that was a lie? Adam wasn't 130? That the use of 130 was a metaphor for something else? If so, what was it and where do we find the contextual clues to indicate that meaning?Matthew, being a Christian text, really can't help us because Genesis was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in Jewish context.The rest of your post 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.

jaywill responds to me:[Off-topic blather deleted for space. Start your own thread.]

quote:

---

According to 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."

---

Indeed, Acts and Genesis contradict each other. Considering that Acts was written nearly two millenia after Genesis by a completely different religious tradition, I am not surprised.At any rate, you're talking about a difference of less than 100 years. Even if we go along with your interpretation, we're still talking about only around 6000 years from the beginning to now.Everything else in your post was off-topic. 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.

J.B. Rotherham's footnote to Genesis 1:1 in the Emphasized Bible: The relevance is that the expression is used elsewhere in Scripture to indicate violent overthrow.The evidence that God did not create the earth tohu in the beginning could also be derived from Isaiah 45:18. This word, whatever meaning is ascribed to it, cannot be descriptive of the earliest condition of the earth. God did not create the earth tohu. It became tohu wa-bohu. It became without form and void. The reason it became so is not elaborated in Genesis chapter one.It is not important to the Divine record at that point to dwell on it. I think we have been over this before. But the word pair indicative of overthrow. You are saying that Genesis indicating that the non-existent heaven and earth were discribed in verse 2. But somehing clearly exists there or there would be nothing for the Spirit of God to be hovering over - "the face of the deep".The heaven and the earth are not non-existent there. They are non-existent only before God created the heavens and the earth. And He did so out of nothing.The first meaning of chaos was a yawning void as a receptical for created matter, as the ancient poet Hesiod wrote around 900 BC. This was the earlier strictest meaning of the word chaos in Greek. Latter the word took on the meaning of a crude and shapeless mass of material out of which the heavens and the earth were supposed to be formed. Satan is the Devil. Satan is refered to in a book older than Genesis, Job. And there he obviously is an enemy of God. Why else would he want to induce Job to curse God to his face? That's because he would like to do so.No friend of God is Satan Rrhain, anywhere in the Bible period.The Pharisees as practitioners of Judaism accused Jesus of casting out demons by the prince of demons. When Jesus heard this He replied that Satan could not cast out Satan. He was speaking to the typical practitioners of the Jewish religion of His day. These Jewish teachers refered to Beelzebul the prince of demons and Jesus replied that Satan could not cast out Satan, then these adherents of Judaism apparently knew about Satan. It seems quite understood that by that time Judiasm had a concept then of:Satan having a kingdom, a "house", and that he was a ruler of the demons. The reply of Jesus apparently assumes that they understood His logic without further explanation.So I do not believe you when you say that there was no idea of Satan in Judaism.You may reason that Genesis was written by Jews for Jews. You should realize that the Gospels were also written by Jews. At least Matthew, Mark, and John were written by Jews.Lastly, 1000 years to God is only like one day. It makes no difference that Acts was written more than a millennia from the time of the writing of Genesis. God is the ultimate Author of the whole Bible.His revelation is progressive. His profoundness and the profoundness of His salvation call for a gradual and progressive unfolding of His revelation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

​

...

​

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.

---

Do you have any evidence for these claims? Not just your opinions, but solid historical, cultural, or (especially) linguistic/grammatical evidence? As shown in Message 32, this phrase is only used one other place in the Old Testament, where it does NOT describe "nothingness itself."Since you seem to consider this subject off-topic, a simple link to a posting where you have already provided this evidence would suffice.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

My complaint is with your dogmatic statement that the Bible says "the universe" and "everything" are "only about 6000 years old." I have already provided evidence that this is wrong in Message 29 and Message 35, but you have declared this "off-topic".This is your thread; it is fine for you to assume any nonsensical thing that you wish for the purpose of discussion in this thread (e.g. that 2+2=5, or that Gen 1:1-2 is part of "Day 1"). But don't think (or claim) that your assumption of it makes it actually true!

jaywill responds to me:[off-topic commentary deleted for space]Well, whaddaya know. Nothing left.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.

kbertsche responds to me:[off-topic commentary deleted for space]Well, whaddaya know. Nothing left.Start your own thread.(Hint: The site has a search function. Use it.)

---

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.

after so many pages of arguing over...umm... something or otherhas anyone worked out where we are in the stream of time yet???

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

My complaint is with your dogmatic statement that the Bible says "the universe" and "everything" are "only about 6000 years old." I have already provided evidence that this is wrong in Message 29 and Message 35, but you have declared this "off-topic".

---

That's because they violated the original post. You did read the original post, didn't you?

quote:

---

But don't think (or claim) that your assumption of it makes it actually true!

---

I never claimed that they did. You did read the original post, didn't you? I presented a scenario where the idea of 6000 years makes no sense. However, the reason I am rejecting such responses is because they require an interpretation that words don't actually mean what they mean such as a "day" not being a day but rather indeterminate years, "the beginning" not actually being the beginning but some unspecified time later, etc.All I wanted to establish in this thread was that taking the text at its word where words mean what they mean, only about 6000 years of time have been accounted for given the specific numbers listed for the amount of years that take place between certain events and the attachment of that timeline to an actual event in history.If you want to discuss why the text should not be taken at its word, that's fine. Start a new thread. It's a PRATT (and the site has a search function for you to see how we've already discussed it to death), but you are perfectly free to bring it up again. Just not here.No censorship, no suppression, I just don't want to get sidetracked.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.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

after so many pages of arguing over...umm... something or other

​

has anyone worked out where we are in the stream of time yet???

---

We're still at only about 6000 years. Depending upon a few possible ways of assigning time, it's give or take fewer than 200 years. We're certainly nowhere near the amount of time life, the universe, and everything has been around.

---

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.

does that mean you've changed your belief in a 6,000 year old earth?

What are you, the site Moderator of your own thread ?Pretty convenient for you.Pretty convenient way to defend your erroneous concepts. Just declare the exposing of them as off topic and irrelevant.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Quite aside from the matter of whether the six days are typical 24 hour days (what I believe) or otherwise, the word created is only used in Genesis for a limited number of things:The heavens and the earth in the beginning, some sea animals, and the creation of Man. Mny more things are said to be formed, shaped or made as from pre-existing matter.And if Rrhain boasts so much that only the Jews understand Genesis, I would like to know how many orthodox Jewish readers of Genesis would agree with his insistence in a 6,000 year old universe from the text of Genesis.If there are exceptions and all do not follow Rrhain's concept, then he can't boast that his position is the defacto "Jewish" understanding.And apparently, the writer of the Targum of Onkelos was a Jew who did not agree with Rrhain's interpretation. And his writings reflected notions of a rabbinic school.I like these skeptics who try to hide behind a "For Jews Only" barrier around the Hebrew Bible who don't themselves agree with a portion of Jewish scholars on its proper understanding.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am not saying anything about the age of Adam whatsoever. Don't confuse me with someone else.However I will say this. Even Jewish thought includes a concept that inspite of 24 hour solar days in Genesis, the creation event could have taken place billions of years before the six days.And here is how some Jewish expositors reason it: They say that the sun was not [created] until the fourth day. So there is no way to assume the length of the previous days. Therefore, the creation of the universe could conceivably be millions or billions of years prior to the "creation" of the sun.This information came to me in a lecture entitled Introduction to Judaism given by Professor Shai Cherry, the Mellon Assistant Professor of Jewish Thought at Vanderbilt University. His Ph.D in Jewish Thought was received at Brandies University.His area of expertise is in "the nexus between science and Judaism." according to the lecture notes.My point here is not whether I agree with the above interpretation or not. My point is that if you are going to attempt to make Genesis "off limits" to non-Jews to interpret, be aware that there are Jewish scholars of Judaism who would not agree that Genesis insists on a 6,000 year old universe.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.

I promised to return to this point. I said that all of the calling events of Abraham are not recorded in Genesis. Rrhain pointed out that Genesis 12 is the calling and covenant of which the Exodus followed by 430 years. He refers to Galatians chapter 3. Does the 430 years from God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 to the Exodus prove that God did not previously call Abraham while in Ur of the Chaldeans ? No it does not.I pointed out that all of the details of Abraham's calling is not recorded in Genesis. Therefore, it should be no surprise that other main subjects of creation in Genesis may be found elsewhere in the Bible. I still stand by that.Rrhain disagrees and argues that the first calling of Abraham occurs in Genesis 12. Rrhain regards the details of Acts 7:2 as some kind of error. But I stand by the fact that Acts 7:2 speaks of Abraham's calling before he left Ur of the Chaldeans and Genesis 12 occurs afterwards. Rrhain responds that Genesis 12 contains the covenant that Paul speaks of preceeding the Exodus by 430 years (Gal. 3:17)In the sense that the promise of God was latter stengthened into a covenant, that could be stated. However, the covenant that God made occured not in chapter 12 but in chapter 15.First Galatians 3:17 says: And Genesis 15 (not 12) says: This was the actual event of God making a covenant with Abraham out of what was previously a promuise - "On that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram ..."God strengthened the promise of chapter 12 with a covenant in chapter 15 because of Abraham's weakness in faith. Notice in chapter 15 Abram expressed his doubts about the previous promise. That day in Genesis 15 rather than in Genesis 12, that "Jehovah made a covenant with Abram ..." The promise in Genesis 12 was strengthened into a contract, a covenant in Genesis 15 due mainly to Abraham's request for assurance.God did promise the seed and the land in Genesis 12: God made the covenant proper in Genesis 15. So is Paul speaking of 430 after Genesis 12 or after Genesis 15? I will have to look into that. However, for my larger point it doesn't matter.Either way it does not prove that there was no previous calling of Abraham while he was in Ur of the Chaldeans. And Acts 7 certainly indicates that God appeared to him before he dwelt in Haran in Genesis 12. Details were scant and to come latter. But the calling of Abraham was clear.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.