The timeline of the Bible

quote:

---

So if Adam is the father of Seth, how can anything in Genesis 5 mean anything other than that? He's not just the "ancestor," he's the father. We've established context that Adam is the father of Seth. What changed the context?

---

You are claiming that since Adam is established as the literal father of Seth in Gen 4, the biblical writers are not allowed to call him the ancestor of Seth in Gen 5??

quote:

---

My statements in Message 110 are completely consistent with my affirmation that Adam is the literal father of Seth.

But you just said he wasn't.

---

False. Please re-read Message 133, Message 128, Message 113, Message 110, Message 82, Message 77, Message 62, Message 61, and Message 57 until you understand them.

quote:

---

Why does it matter? The only thing that matters is that Matthew gets the list wrong

---

It matters for two reasons:
1) You have given two different answers which seem to be inconsistent. I do not understand your position. Did Matthew intentionally omit names or not?
2) If Matthew intentionally left names out and still used the word "begat", this implies that he did not view "begat" as implying a literal father-son relationship. This supports my claims regarding Hebrew genealogies.

quote:

---

Um, you do realize that the text of Matthew is not the same language as the text of Genesis, yes?

---

Of course. But the cultures of the authors were very similar and Matthew knew of the Genesis genealogies.

quote:

---

I am claiming that since Adam is established as the literal father of Genesis just four sentences ago and that Seth is established as the literal father of Enos just three sentences ago, then a context has been established and any claim that this context has changed is going to require more justification than bald assertion. After all, the words used right now are the same words used just ten seconds ago so if we are to understand them to mean something different now, then there will have to be a change in context to let us know that we don't mean that anymore.
...
Is Adam Seth's father or not? If he is, then why doesn't a phrase that uses the same words as the passage that we turn to in order to establish Adam as Seth's father not indicate fatherhood?

---

But it is not the word "begat" (yalad) that establishes Adam as the literal father of Seth in Gen 4, it is the descriptions of events in the rest of the narrative. Both you and I are sure of this due to the extended narrative, not due to the word "begat". The word "begat" means "ancestor" BOTH in Gen 4 and in Gen 5. There is no change in meaning. The rest of the Gen 4 narrative does not modify the meaning of "begat"; it provides additional information not conveyed by "begat" either in Gen 4 or in Gen 5. This has already been explained in Message 113.

quote:

---

Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in describing how god blessed the generations of Adam that changes it? How? If we call Adam the father of Seth just moments ago, how does using the same words not mean Adam is the father of Seth? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

---

Already addressed multiple times. Please re-read Message 128, Message 110, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Suppose it was intentional. How does that affect our reading of Genesis?

---

Matthew's usage gives us information about how Hebrew cultures viewed genealogies. Mt 1 is pertinent to our reading of Gen 5.

quote:

---

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

---

Of course. Why is this relevant?Do you realize that the OT had been translated into Greek, and was available to the NT writers? Do you realize that the Greek word for "begat" in Gen 5 (gennaoo) is the same word used by Matthew in Mt 1?

quote:

---

Are you seriously claiming that culture didn't change over the intervening 1600 years?

---

Of course not. I said: Note the word "similar". This does not mean "identical".

quote:

---

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

​

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

​

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

---

If anything, the Bible cautions AGAINST too much emphasis on genealogies:

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

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.

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.

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: 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:

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:

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!

Rrhain replied:

quote:

---

First, incorrect. The six creative days are the creation of the heavens and the earth described in the first sentence.

---

No, Peg is correct. The best fit with the grammar is that v.1 was a separate event which occurred PRIOR to v.3, as explained in Message 35. For a more detailed discussion of the grammatical issues, see basic reading of genesis 1:1.

quote:

---

How does the use of the perfect in the first sentence indicate that the event being described is a different event than the event being described in the second sentence?

---

My conclusion that v.1 describes an event prior to v.3 is based primarily on the grammar of the preterite (waw-consecutive). It is true that the form of the verb in v.1 is perfect (or past perfect), but I consider this a secondary evidence. See my more detailed arguments in basic reading of genesis 1:1.

quote:

---

[parroting of irrelevant comments regarding perfect tense]

---

You are completely missing (or intentionally ignoring) the point. Your parroting of claims about the perfect are irrelevant to my main evidence, which is the preterite forms.Do you understand the Hebrew grammatical rules for the preterite (or waw-consecutive, if you prefer that terminology)? Basically, the preterite describes a series of consecutive events. The verb in v.3 cannot be the first in the series; its form requires a prior event, which is in v.1. I've given a basic description of the preterite in basic reading of genesis 1:1; you could find more in a basic Hebrew grammar text.

quote:

---

You don't apply this reasoning to any other verses in the Bible, so why is this one special? It makes no sense to talk about "the beginning" if something had happened before. That wouldn't make it "the beginning" but would rather make it "later." It makes no sense to talk about the creation of things that already existed.

---

False. This is basic Hebrew grammar. The preterite occurs quite often, these rules apply, and I apply the same reasoning.