The timeline of the Bible

You seem to be making the questionable assumption that Day 1 begins at Gen 1:1. All of the subsequent days begin with "And God said". So from a literary perspective, Day 1 starts with the "and God said" of Gen 1:3. Gen 1:1, the creation of "the heavens and the earth" (a merism for "everything") occurred BEFORE Day 1. As further evidence of this, note that the account of the six Days nowhere addresses the creation of the earth itself; the account assumes that the earth is already here before Day 1 begins.Thus, even with a 24-hour day assumption, there is a break in the timeline, and an indeterminate amount of time, between the original creation of the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1) and their final completion, which begins at Day 1 (Gen 1:3).

Sorry; I read the original post too quickly the first time and missed this. I won't press issue this further, but you won't find the meaning of the text if you ignore such implications.You seem to be misreading the account in a number of other ways: No, Day 3 describes a separation of dry land from water. It does not describe the original creation of the planet. What do you think the waters of Day 2 were resting on? Or the "deep" of Gen 1:2? No, "formless and void" does not mean "non-existent", it means "barren" or "desolate". The same phrase ("tohu w' bohu" in the Hebrew) is used this way in Jer. 4:23:

quote:

---

Incorrect. Day 3 describes much more than that. The land comes out of the water and is specifically called by god to be "earth." Since the earth did not exist at all in any way, shape, or form (being "without form and void"), this clearly means the earth came into existence on Day 3.

---

Hebrew uses the word 'eretz to refer to land, earth, and ground. The ancient Hebrews had no concept of "globe" or "planet". On Day 3, the land was separated from the water, as you say. Before this there was no dry land. But in modern language, there was obviously a planet underneath the water.

quote:

---

Nothing. That's the point. There was no earth. The description shows that the earth came out of the water, just as life did. This is a very old mythological concept.
...
Incorrect. The phrase "without form and void" specifically means "non-existent." You are forgetting that you are not being presented with a single word but rather with a specific phrasing of multiple words. Therefore, you cannot take the words in isolation and expect to have a correct interpretation.

---

You are ignoring the grammar of Gen 1:1-3. Verse 1 describes an event, the creation of "the heavens and the earth." Verse 3 begins with the preterite (waw-consecutive), describing a subsequent event. Likewise, the following Days each begin with the preterite, describing subsequent events. Grammatically, the first event in the series is the creation of "the heavens and the earth" which occurs BEFORE Day 3. Verse 1 is not simply a heading, as many wish it to be; the grammar is not consistent with this.

quote:

---

The phrase is "to.hu va.vo.hu." Now, "bohuw" individually means "emptiness," "void," "waste." "Waste" in this context does not simply mean "desloate" as if it were a desert with no life in it. Instead, "waste" is more connected to the Greek concept of "chaos" meaning "emptiness." You will note that "emptiness" is one of the meanings.

---

This is an anachronistic reading. You are importing much later Greek notions onto the meaning of the text.

quote:

---

While it is true that "tohuw" can be interpreted to mean that sort of "barren desert" concept of "waste," it's primary meaning is that of "nothingness." And when combined with "bohuw," that serves to reinforce the meaning: "Nothingness and emptiness."

​

In fact, in the Bible, this specific combination is used three times, each time to refer to nothingness: Gen 1:2 as previously mentioned.

---

You can claim that black = white if you wish, but that doesn't make it true.

quote:

---

Now, once again, you are completely off topic. If you want to discuss what Genesis 1 says, start your own thread.

---

You are the one who keeps erroneously claiming in THIS thread that the planet did not exist until Day 3. I am merely responding to your erroneous assertions regarding the text. If you really want to know "the timeline of the Bible", you need to read the text correctly. Otherwise you are only discussing "the timeline of Rrhain's interpretation of the Bible."

quote:

---

That "obviously" doesn't appear to belong there, Kbertsche. Our planet was not a "planet," a "wanderer," to any of the ancient middle easterners. It was where we lived, and was variously set on pillars or foundations or "suspended on nothing," but appears, in all cosmology from around there, to have been surrounded by water. Perhaps there was a turtle or two below the surface of that water, but there is no hint of anything resembling a planet, whether in ancient or in modern language.

---

Point taken. The original understanding may not have assumed anything under the water.

quote:

---

So, some very simple questions:

​

Is this the timeline listed in the Bible?
Are these events actually linked from one to the next such that all we have to do is add the years up to get the timeline?
Assuming that the days mentioned in Gen 1 are literal, 24-hour days, would this not be indicative of life, the universe, and everything being less than 6000 years old?

---

Hopefully these comments are considered on-topic (?)You assume that the Bible intends to present a "timeline" with its chronologies. But I suspect that this is an anachronistic understanding of the text, assuming that it is similar to modern historical accounts. It needs to be read in the context of the day, e.g. in context of the Sumerian King List. The purpose of the Sumerian King List was apparently to establish descendency, thereby legitimacy for the throne. Likewise, the purpose of the biblical chronologies seems to be to establish descendency, not to present a literal timeline.

quote:

---

And thus the use of years is "metaphorical"? So this is one of those times when the Bible is not actually saying what it says but needs to be "interpreted"? Isn't it convenient that whenever the text says what you want it to say, it's supposed to be taken at face value but whenever it causes trouble for your pre-conceived notion, it has to be interpreted?

---

The Bible ALWAYS must be interpreted. A literal, "face value" interpretation is still an interpretation.

quote:

---

Then why provide a timeline of any kind?

---

You have not established that the Bible presents a timeline. You have assumed/declared it based on an anachronistic reading of the text.If you want to understand what the biblical authors really meant to communicate, you need to read the text in its cultural context, not anachronistically. Let's see you at least address the analogs from neighboring cultures (e.g. Sumerian King List). In this cultural context, what are the biblical authors trying to communicate? What are the similarities and differences between the biblical and other accounts?

quote:

---

Clearly, your "interpretation" of the Bible is fallacious for the Jewish calendar starts from "the beginning" and counts every single year from the moment of creation to now.

​

It is the year 5769.

​

Are you about to say that Jews don't understand their own religion?

---

As you are probably aware, many biblical scholars (even Jewish scholars) don't accept the Jewish calendar as authoritative.But you DO seem to think that the Jewish calendar is authoritative. If so, why start this thread? Why not just look at the Jewish calendar for your timeline?I'm getting the impression that you're not so interested in discovering "What does the Bible really mean?" (the subtitle of this forum) as you are in setting up a straw man that you can easily knock down.

quote:

---

Huh? "X event happened Y years after Z event" is "anachronistic"? It isn't talking about the events? The number of years doesn't actually mean the number of years? There isn't any actual information in such a statement?
...
And what is the "anachronism" of reading "X event took place Y years after Z event" and coming to the conclusion that a specific number of years passed between the events?

---

There are a number of steps in the process which you seem to be conflating:
1) First you've got to determine what the text really SAYS. What is the best reading of the original languages? What is the best way to translate this into English?
2) Then you've got to determine what this really MEANS. Not just what the words mean to you today, but what they meant to the original authors. For this, you've got to get into the head of the authors and understand their cultural and historical context. The translators try to do this to some extent in Step 1, but they can't do it all (and sometimes they mess up).
3) You've got to determine what the author was trying to TEACH. For example, his words might imply geocentrism, and he might have meant and actually believed this. But that doesn't mean that he's trying to TEACH it in the passage.

quote:

---

You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?

---

Based on the surrounding narrative, there seem to be no gaps in the Gen 5 genealogy between Adam and Enos. But after Enos, there could be: Kitchen gives a number of examples to support these claims. The best-known is from the NT (Mt. 1:8), which says that "Joram begat Uzziah.' But comparing with the OT, it is clear that Uzziah was actually the great-great-grandson of Joram. Other examples are the children that "Zilpah bare to Jacob" in Gen 46:18, but which actually include great-grandchildren, and Jehu the son of Nimshi (1 Kings 19:15; 2 Kings 9:20) who was really a grandson. Kitchen also provides examples from Babylonian and Egyptian texts, showing that this was the cultural norm. The important thing was to show descendency, not to provide a numerically accurate record in the modern sense.

quote:

---

No, I am interested in people not playing dumb.

---

Really? Then why do YOU want to ignore the cultural context?

quote:

---

The original claim is, as Peg had said, "The Bible doesn't say the earth is only 6000 years old."

​

Well, yes, it does. If you add up all the specific and direct statements that event X happened Y years after event Z and hook it onto an actual event in time, you can then determine exactly how old the Bible claims the earth to be.

---

It appears that you've already made up your mind about what the text both says and means, ignoring its context.

quote:

---

Now, it requires that we take the phrases at their word: That when it says, "the beginning," it really means the beginning and not "later," that when it says, "day," it really means a day and not "thousands of years," that when it says, "And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos," it really means 105 actual years.

---

This is not taking phrases "at their word." It is yanking phrases out of their cultural and historical context and interpreting them anachronistically.

quote:

---

Are you claiming that there is no such thing as "young earth creationism"? Why do you think there is even a term, "young earth creationism"? Haven't you noticed that those who claim a "young earth creationism" say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Did it never occur to you to wonder where they got that number?

​

In order to claim that the Bible doesn't claim a young earth, you need to explain why "And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos" doesn't actually mean Seth was 105 years old. That's the subject for another thread. For the purposes of this thread, I am simply trying to make sure that we have all the numbers and haven't made any math errors in adding them up.

---

You are reading the text in a naively literal manner, just as the YECs do. Both of you ignore the cultural and historical context. This may be a good tactic for debating YECs, but it is not a good way to find the real meaning of the Bible.

quote:

---

Again, we all know you don't agree that when the text says, "day," it really means a day despite being phrased in such a way that only means, "literal, 24-hour day."

---

Leading Jewish and Christian theologians for centuries have seen the days as something OTHER than 24-hour days. This includes Augustine in the 4th century, long before the rise of modern science.You can pronounce that the text can only mean a literal 24-hour day if you wish, but many who have spent their lives studying the text disagree with you.

quote:

---

Your argument is that words don't actually mean anything.

---

Not true.

quote:

---

Do words actually mean anything?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

So what you're saying is that when the text specifically and directly mentions event X happened Y years after event Z, we're just supposed to ignore that middle part?

---

No, I am not saying that.I quoted Kitchen, "The phrase 'A begat B' does not always imply direct parenthood" which you twisted to mean:

quote:

---

In short, no, words don't actually mean anything.

---

which is NOT what I (or Kitchen) said.

quote:

---

The problem is that they provide a specific number. If the numbers weren't important, why bother providing such precise numbers? The examples you give don't provide numbers. It simply says that "A begat B." But in Gen 5 and Gen 11, we are given specific, precise numbers. It isn't that Jared sired Enoch. It's that he was specifically and precisely 162 when Enoch was sired and then lived another 800 years after that.

​

To claim that Gen 5 and 11 can't be used to create a timeline is to claim that all of that precision was of no use: That quite literally two-thirds of the verses can be discarded out of hand. This immediately leads one to wonder why on earth the authors went to so much trouble to provide such specific and precise timekeeping if it were irrelevant. If there were no point to how old everybody is, why spend a verse to specifically and precisely point out how old they were when they died?

---

There's a difference between claiming that these numbers are not useful in establishing a timeline and claiming that they have no purpose AT ALL. You seem to assume that establishing a timeline is the only possible purpose for these numbers.

quote:

---

I asked you a direct question about it and you haven't answered it. This will make twice I have asked it of you. Are you about to become the latest person I have to ask the same question over and over again and we thus spend 300 posts of you avoiding a direct question?

​

You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?

---

I thought I answered this question in my previous post, but perhaps my answer was unclear. I'll try to spell it out more clearly:It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the line culminating in Enos. But in this case, the line was only one long; Enos was the literal son of Seth. We know this not from Gen 5:6, but from the surrounding narrative. The words in Gen 5:6 are ambiguous. They mean that Seth begat the line culminating in Enos, but do not specify how many people were in this line.Let's look at Gen 5:9: In the cultural and historical context, this means that 90 years passed between the event of the birth of Enos and the event of the birth of a line of descendents which led to Cainan. This "line" could have been Cainan himself (as in Gen 5:6), or could have taken many generations.The verb "begat" is more literally "fathered", which in cultural usage meant "ancestored" (i.e. became the ancestor of).

quote:

---

Since you haven't actually proferred any context and have actually avoided my direct request for you to provide it, I will take this to mean that you're simply blowing smoke up my ass.

---

Though I saw no "direct request" to provide this, I summarized the cultural context from Kitchen for you. If you wish, you can read more from him or from many other scholars of the ancient near east.

quote:

---

Third time:

​

You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
...

​

Fourth time:

​

You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
...

​

Fifth time:

​

You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?

---

You seem to enjoy repeating yourself. Did you even read my previous post, where I tried to answer this??

quote:

---

Now, for the third time: Please take your argument that words like "day" don't actually mean "day" to another thread. This thread assumes that "day" means "day," "year" means "year," and numbers are important.
...
Now, fourth time: Take your topic about what the word "day" means in Gen 1 to another thread. THIS thread assumes that "day" means "day."

---

This is NOT the argument that I am making in this thread. I did not raise the issue of the length of the days--you did! It's fine to say that we won't discuss the topic in this thread, or that we will assume it to be 24-hours for this thread. But if you really mean this, why did you raise the issue? You not only mentioned it, you went further; you claimed in this thread that "day" in the text can ONLY MEAN 24-hours. I merely pointed out that this is not universally accepted by textual scholars.Edited by kbertsche, : My original wording could have been seen as more antagonistic than I intended.

quote:

---

Huh? That's not what it says.

​

Genesis 5:18:
:- -
va.ye.khi-ye.red she.ta.yim ve.shi.shim sha.na u.me.at sha.na va.yo.led et-kha.nokh:
And Jared lived a hundred sixty and two years, and begot Enoch.

​

This is not a statement that Jared was 162 when he had a kid who would have a kid who would...who would have Enoch some many years later thus indicating that there weren't 162 years between the birth of Jared and the birth of Enoch. It is a statement that when Enoch was born, Jared was 162.

---

But you asked what it MEANS. What it MEANS is that when Enoch's LINE was begun, Jared was 162. It doesn't mean this to you, because you are still trying to ignore the cultural context and to read it anachronistically.

quote:

---

That's what "yalad" means. It is very caught up in the context of bearing, bringing forth, midwifery, labor (as in giving birth).

---

Except that it only applies to males, I agree. (It is the father's version of "giving birth".)It means that Jared was 162 when he fathered his first male child, whose line led to Enoch.

quote:

---

Again, the problem is that they provide a specific number. If the numbers weren't important, why bother providing such precise numbers? The examples you give don't provide numbers. It simply says that "A begat B." But in Gen 5 and Gen 11, we are given specific, precise numbers. It isn't that Jared was simply an ancestor of Enoch. It's that he was specifically and precisely 162 when Enoch was sired.

---

Again, what this means is that he was 162 when Enoch's LINE was sired. (Your "specifically and precisely" is also anachronistic, of course; the Hebrews were much less concerned about precision than we are today).Why are the numbers important? In the middle east, it was (and still is) very important to father a son. Men who do not have sons are looked down upon. Fathering one's first son gives a man a large status boost in the society. That's probably why the father's age when he sires his first son is mentioned; this is a big deal for the father in the culture.

quote:

---

Sixth time:

​

You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?

---

It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the LINE that led to Enos.

quote:

---

You're missing the point. Your argument is that words don't have actual meanings: That when the text says Jared was 162 years old when Enoch was born, that means some number of years other than 162 passed between the time Jared was born and the time Enoch was born.

---

Words DO have meanings. But to understand what was actually MEANT by the words, we need to understand the culture in which the words were spoken and what the words and phrases meant in this culture.My argument is that words DO have meanings, but not the meanings that you want to anachronistically place upon them.

quote:

---

This is iconically shown by those who claim that "day" doesn't actually mean "day."

​

That said, your claim isn't exactly true, now is it:

​

Message 29:

​

kbertsche writes:
You seem to be making the questionable assumption that Day 1 begins at Gen 1:1. All of the subsequent days begin with "And God said". So from a literary perspective, Day 1 starts with the "and God said" of Gen 1:3. Gen 1:1, the creation of "the heavens and the earth" (a merism for "everything") occurred BEFORE Day 1. As further evidence of this, note that the account of the six Days nowhere addresses the creation of the earth itself; the account assumes that the earth is already here before Day 1 begins.

​

Thus, even with a 24-hour day assumption, there is a break in the timeline, and an indeterminate amount of time, between the original creation of the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1) and their final completion, which begins at Day 1 (Gen 1:3).

​

You are clearly indicating that direct statements about the "first" day aren't actually about the "first" day but instead are about some time later.

---

What?? My comments had nothing to do with the LENGTH of any of the days. They hold true whether the days were 24 hours or not.

quote:

---

Note what it is you are trying to do: Despite the exact same phrasing used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, you try to engage in special pleading by saying the phrasing means one thing there but when it comes to Jared and Enoch, it means something else. You don't get to have it both ways. If Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.

---

No, no special pleading at all. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.I wrote:

quote:

---

And where is the "anachronism"? Where on earth are lines defined by the last person in the chain and not the first? After all, how can you possibly know what line you are in if the person who defines it hasn't been born yet? Nowhere else do we find this interpretation and even you don't use it when it doesn't suit you.

---

The anachronism is that you persistently ignore the cultural context, the way these words and phrases were used by the Hebrews and neighboring cultures. Instead, you read them as if they were spoken today, in our culture. This is the anachronism.I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with Kitchen give objective reasons why he is wrong, e.g. counterclaims of the cultural practices from other archaeologists or something on that level. Logical arguments regarding what it means to you today are not sufficient.I wrote:

quote:

---

Incorrect. The very first time "yalad" is used in the Bible, it is used to describe the punishment of Eve ("in sorrow thou shalt bring forth [yalad] children").

​

The second time? Eve again, saying how she gave birth to Cain.

​

Third time? Eve again, saying how she gave birth to Abel.

​

Fourth time? Cain's unnamed and unexplained wife saying how she gave birth to Enoch.

​

Fifth time? Well, we finally get to a man but in a passive sense: "And unto Enoch was born Irad."

​

It's only the sixth time that we finally get into "yalad" being used directly with reference to men: "And Irad begat Mahujael."

---

Oops--you're right. It IS the same word used for both mothers "giving birth" and fathers "siring". I don't know what I was thinking.I wrote:

quote:

---

Incorrect. Nowhere else is it interpreted this way. Not even you do it when it doesn't suit you. If Adam is the direct father of Seth, then Jared is the direct father of Enos.

---

No, the wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one. Not from the way you would like to read it, not from logic, but from the history and culture of the writer's day.I wrote:

quote:

---

But that isn't what you said before. The exact same phrasing was used for Adam and Seth and you claim it means Adam was Seth's actual father. Now you're saying that the exact same phrasing means something else. Are we now through the looking glass and are you now Humpty Dumpty where words means precisely what you choose them to mean, neither more nor less?

---

I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.But I was very clear before in saying that it is the surrounding narrative, NOT this phrasing, that leads us to conclude that the length of the line from Adam to Seth was 1.The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.

quote:

---

You don't get to have it both ways.

​

If Adam is the direct father of Seth and Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch and Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.

---

The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one. Not from the way you would like to read it, not from logic, but from the history and culture of the writer's day.I wrote:

quote:

---

So why do we find so many generational lists without ages? We don't learn of the ages of Cain's line (note how it is defined by the head of the list, not the tail.)

---

Good question. There are probably good reasons for this, but I don't know what they are. At some point we will have to allow the writers some artistic license in how they phrase things.I wrote:

quote:

---

But that isn't what you said before. The exact same phrasing was used for Adam and Seth and you claim it means Adam was Seth's actual father. Now you're saying that the exact same phrasing means something else. Are we now through the looking glass and are you now Humpty Dumpty where words means precisely what you choose them to mean, neither more nor less?

​

You don't get to have it both ways.

​

If Adam is the direct father of Seth and Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch and Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.

---

I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one. Not from the way you would like to read it, not from logic, but from the history and culture of the writer's day.I wrote:

quote:

---

But you keep changing them to suit your mood. The exact same phrasing is used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth as to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch. You don't get to then claim they don't mean the same thing. You don't get to have it both ways. If Adam is the direct father of Seth and Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch and Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.

---

I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one. Not from the way you would like to read it, not from logic, but from the history and culture of the writer's day.I wrote:

quote:

---

What part of "first" are you having a hard time handling? The events of Genesis 1 detail the specifics of "the beginning" and specifically describe what happens on the "first" day. For you to claim that some length of time other than 24 hours passed between "the beginning" and the end of the "first" day, then you necessarily claim that the words don't mean what they mean. You directly claim a "break in the timeline," and thus a "day" means something other than a day.

---

As I explained before, the textual structure indicates that Day 1 begins at verse 3. Verses 1 and 2 are prior to this. This does not affect the meaning or length of Day 1. (BTW, the text does not say "first day". It uses the cardinal number, "day one" instead of the ordinal.)

(Note: I dislike all of the repetition of questions and answers; I find it annoying and hard to wade through. But Rrhain apparently likes this repetetive point-by-point style, so I will try to follow it.)

quote:

---

But you say that when the phrase is used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, it means Adam was the direct ancestor of Seth and that he was precisely 135 when Seth was born. But now you say that when the exact same phrase is used to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch, it means that Jared was not the direct ancestor of Enoch nor that he was precisely 162 when Enoch was born.

---

False. As I said (repeatedly) in Message #53: Is ths not clear enough? Do I need to repeat this more times? Say it in different words?

quote:

---

That's special pleading.

---

Don't be ridiculous. The meaning is general enough to include both cases. This is no more "special pleading" than any other general statement that you or I may make.I wrote:

quote:

---

And yet you persist in refusing to provide this context. No other description of a "line" uses the person on the end to describe it. So what is this "anachronism" you keep returning to?

---

In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.I wrote:

quote:

---

No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.

---

I provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.

quote:

---

"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

Simple: Assertion doesn't make it so. You have not provided any evidence.

---

In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. This is evidence.I wrote:

quote:

---

You said it did with Adam. Why are you demanding special pleading?

---

False. As I said (repeatedly) in Message #53: Is ths not clear enough? Do I need to repeat this more times? Say it in different words?The meaning is general enough to include both cases. This is no more "special pleading" than any other general statement that you or I may make.I wrote:

quote:

---

Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification.

---

Are we making progress? is this finally an admission that I DID present some cultural/historical evidence??

quote:

---

Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.

---

No, the cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.

quote:

---

"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?

---

In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

So now you're contradicting yourself. If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.

​

You don't get to have it both ways.

---

False. The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.I wrote:

quote:

---

And since the following verses follow immediately upon the declaration of Adam being the direct father of Seth, how does the context change so that every single instance after is not also a direct statement of direct parentage? Especially since the last passage in the chain of Noah's begetting of Shem, Ham, and Japheth is an example of direct parentage?

​

How convenient that it only means not a direct parentage when it becomes inconvenient for you.

---

The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.(Perhaps I was unclear when I said that the "surrounding narrative" tells us that the line from Adam to Seth had a length of 1. I was referring to the narrative OUTSIDE of Gen 5. For Adam and Seth, it is Gen 4 which clarifies the length of this line.)I wrote:

quote:

---

How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?

---

This DOES have a meaning, which I've explained (repeatedly) in message #51:

quote:

---

"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

You said it did with Adam. Why are you demanding special pleading?

---

False. As I said (repeatedly) in Message #53: Is ths not clear enough? Do I need to repeat this more times? Say it in different words?The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents. This is no more "special pleading" than any other general statement that you or I may make.I wrote:

quote:

---

How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?

---

This DOES have a meaning, which I've explained (repeatedly) in message #51:

quote:

---

"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.

​

"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?

---

In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.

quote:

---

The numbers mean nothing?

---

??? I neither said nor implied this.I wrote:

quote:

---

So we are through the looking glass and you are Humpty Dumpty.

---

??? I neither said nor implied this.I wrote:

quote:

---

So now you're contradicting yourself.

---

No. I'm clarifying my earlier statements.

quote:

---

If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.

​

You don't get to have it both ways.

---

False. The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.I wrote:

quote:

---

Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?

---

This DOES have a meaning, which I've explained (repeatedly) in message #51:

quote:

---

"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.

​

"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?

---

In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?

---

In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

So now you're contradicting yourself. If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.

​

You don't get to have it both ways.

---

False. The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.I wrote:

quote:

---

Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.i wrote:

quote:

---

How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:

​

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?

---

This DOES have a meaning, which I've explained (repeatedly) in message #51:

quote:

---

"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.

---

When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.

​

"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?

---

In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?

---

In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.I wrote:

quote:

---

Huh? You mean the first day doesn't begin at "the beginning"? Then it isn't the first day, now is it? By your logic, the first day happens "later." That certainly affects the meaning of Day 1.

---

Day 1 begins at verse 3, after "the beginning," which is in verse 1.I wrote:

quote:

---

How does "day one" mean something other than "first day"?

​

And by the way, no, actually it says, "one day," "a second day," "a third day," if one wants to take a literal translation. But let's not play dumb and act as if that makes a difference. "In the beginning."

---

Ordinals and cardinals are different, as I'm sure you know. They have different meanings. If the author had wanted to say "first day" he would have said so, using the ordinal."Yom echad" is literally "day one", but "one day" would be an equally acceptable translation. "First day" is NOT a good translation.

quote:

---

The only reason I am repeating myself is because you haven't responded to the issue:

---

I HAVE responded to you regarding this many times. I don't know if you truly don't understand what I am saying, or if you just want to ignore things for which you have no scholarly or intellectual response. I suspect the latter, but I will hope for the former.Let's try again to resolve this issue, which seems to be a central one:

quote:

---

You claim that Adam is the direct father of Seth.

---

Yes, based on the narrative in Gen 4. But this is outside the passage in question, which is Gen 5.

quote:

---

But the exact same phrasing is used to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch. So if Adam is the direct father of Seth, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch.

---

This phrasing is in Gen 5. The cultural/historical meaning of the phrases is that Adam is the ANCESTOR of Seth, and Jared is the ANCESTOR of Enoch.

quote:

---

You keep ejaculating "anachronism!" as if that explains anything

---

I keep saying this because you persist in ignoring the cultural/historical context, where "begat" meant descendency, not direct sonship. You keep insisting that it meant to the author what it means to you today (i.e. direct sonship).You need to address the cultural/historical context. If you believe that my claims of said context are wrong, please provide cultural/historical evidence to the contrary. You have not done this; you have simply provided logical arguments and ignored the cultural/historical issues. I could provide more such cultural/historical context, but first you need to deal with what I have already provided rather than simply ignoring or dismissing it.

quote:

---

while continually avoiding to provide any specifics as to why the exact same words mean two different things.
...
How? How can the exact same statement mean two different things?

---

As I've said repeatedly, they DO NOT mean two different things. They mean an ancestor/descendent relationship in both cases. In one case it may be father/son and in another it may be great-grandfather/great-grandson. This is not an inconsistency or a special pleading. In both cases "begat" means "ancestored". The exact same words mean the exact same thing in both cases.

quote:

---

Where is your justification? "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient. "Anachronism!" is not an answer. You have to explain why.

---

I've given you quotes from an expert which explain this. Though you are not an expert in the field, you have simply dismissed this evidence out-of-hand. Expert claims (as opposed to non-expert claims) deserve an intellectual and scholarly response, not simple dismissal.I've given you examples from Scripture where "begat" is clearly not direct sonship. But you reject this because of irrelevant differences (one text has numbers, one does not) which do not affect the meaning of "begat".I've mentioned that the surrounding cultures used these terms in the same way, to refer to ancestor/descendent relationships which may have gaps. I could provide more concrete examples of this, but would it really help? I think you would again dismiss the evidence rather than dealing with the cultural/historical context, which you seem to be allergic to.

I'll focus on what i believe is the crux of Rrhain's difficulty:I wrote: (*blink!*)

quote:

---

You did not just say that, did you?

---

YES. I've been saying this and you've been pretending that I didn't.It means an ancestor/descendent relationship in both cases. Do you understand what the word "ancestor" and the word "descendent" mean?

quote:

---

If the description of Adam and Seth is to be taken to mean direct lineage and the exact same words are used to describe Jared and Enoch but aren't to be taken to mean direct lineage, then how can you possibly claim you aren't saying they mean two different things?

​

If Adam is the father of Seth, how is Jared not the father of Enoch?

---

Adam is the ancestor of Seth, and Jared is the ancestor of Enoch.n+1st time:
They DO NOT mean two different things. They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
I've stated this repeatedly. Why do you keep playing dumb?

quote:

---

Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

---

What a silly question! As you know, and as I've said repeatedly, it is not the "begat" phrasing, but OTHER parts of the narrative (Gen 4) further define the ancestor/descendent relationship in the case of Adam and Seth. They do not do this in all of the other cases.I wrote:

quote:

---

So now you're saying Adam is not the father of Seth? Will you make up your mind?

---

What part of "They mean an ancestor/descendent relationship in both cases" do you not understand? Where did you get "father" from these words?n+2nd time:
They DO NOT mean two different things. They mean EXACTLY the same thing.I wrote:

quote:

---

But it's the exact same passage with only the names changed. How could it possibly mean something other than the exact same thing?

---

Do you understand what the word "ancestor" and the word "descendent" mean?n+3rd time:
They DO NOT mean two different things. They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
I've stated this repeatedly. Why do you keep playing dumb?

quote:

---

Special pleading.

---

I already addressed this (multiple times):

quote:

---

But you're saying that in the first case, it means Adam is the father of Seth and in the second case, it means Jared is not the father of Enoch.

---

NO! I am NOT saying this. I have specifically denied this multiple times. Do you understand what the word "ancestor" and the word "descendent" mean?n+4th time:
They DO NOT mean two different things. They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
I've stated this repeatedly. Why do you keep playing dumb?It seems that we cannot even communicate at the present time. You seem to not understand what I am saying, you put foreign words in my mouth, and you twist my words. Until you can understand what I am saying on these points, there is no reason to discuss any further points. You don't have to agree with me, but you at least have to understand me before we can move this discussion ahead.

quote:

---

except that in the case of Seth, he really was one of Adams own sons.
Eve named him Seth because, as she said, 'God has appointed another seed in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.'

​

this along with the fact that Lukes geneology lists Seth as the 'Son of Adam'

---

Agreed. As I've repeatedly explained to Rrhain, the "begat" phrasing of Gen 5 is non-specific, meaning only ancestry/descendency. It is the other narrative (e.g. Gen 4) that clarifies for us that Adam and Seth were specifically father/son.

quote:

---

Is there a missing verse we don't know about?

---

Not that I know of. But this is a tautology, of course; if we don't know about a missing verse, then of course we wouldn't know if it were missing!

quote:

---

Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How?

---

No change in the meaning that I can see.

quote:

---

If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch?

---

And if the text of Gen 5 does NOT mean this, your protasis is false and your apodosis does not follow.

quote:

---

If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

---

It didn't, so far as I can see. But see my comments below on your "changing context" idea.

quote:

---

How many times do I need to ask you these direct questions before you answer them?

---

How many times do I have to answer them before you understand my answers?

quote:

---

Yes or no: Is there a missing verse we don't know about? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical.

---

Why do you keep asking such a silly question?

quote:

---

Yes or no: Is there something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death that changes the context? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical.

​

Please, I'm begging you. Answer the question:

​

If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

---

These questions and descriptions are not very clear. There is a literary context, a historical context, and a cultural context. I suppose you are referring to literary context, since you try to ignore the others.The literary context is what it is; I don't know what you mean by the context "changing". One can speak of an immediate literary context or of various broader literary contexts. Different passages have different immediate contexts; perhaps this is what you mean by a "change" in context? At any rate, "change" is not a normal way to refer to literary context.