The timeline of the Bible

It seems that multiple people in this forum have claimed that the Bible does not indicate that the earth is about 6000 years old. It appears that they make this claim based upon a couple trains of thought:1) The Bible does not give a specific date as if we should expect to find a passage saying, "The Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh."2) There is some nebulous, non-specificity to the timeline in the Bible.I say that while the Bible does not give a specific date, it does give a specific timeline which, through a process of simple addition, we can use to come up with a total amount of time for the existence of life, the universe, and everything. If we can then hook this timeline on an actual date, we can then determine exactly how old everything is supposed to be.Genesis 1 gives the six, literal, 24-hour days of creation from "the beginning" through to the creation of the first human.Genesis 5 counts up the generations from the first human, Adam, to Noah which gives 956 years.Genesis 8 says that Noah was 601 when the flood was over (1557 years total).Genesis 11 has the generations of Noah to Abraham (292 years from the end of the flood to Abraham or 1849 total).Genesis 12 tells us Abraham was 75 when god made his covenant with him (1924 years)Galatians 3 says that the Exodus happened 430 years after the covenant (2354 years).1 Kings 6 says that the building of the Temple of Solomon was begun 480 years after the Exodus (2834 years).It is generally considered that the Temple of Solomon was begun in 956 BCE so this means that life, the universe, and everything is about 5800 years old from "the beginning."Has there been a problem with the math? 956+601+292+75+460+480+956+2009 != 5799?Now, I know there will be some people who claim that the six days of creation mentioned in Gen 1 aren't literal, 24-hour days, but let's just for the sake of argument say that they are. Is this not what the Bible says with regard to the timeline? Was an event skipped? The event listed in Galations 3 is not the same as the event listed in 1 Kings 6 and thus they cannot be linked? If we assume that these direct statements for how many years passed between one event and the next are to be believed, how is there a fault in adding up those years to come up with an amount of time between "the beginning" and now?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?Arguments about how Gen 1 isn't referring to literal, 24-hour days is not allowed. We are assuming just for the sake of argument that they are. Clearly if the "day" listed in Gen 1 isn't actually a day, then any amount of time could be claimed.Too, ICANT's insistence that the events of Gen 1:2-Gen 2:3 do not immediately follow chronologically from "the beginning" event described in Gen 1:1 and that Gen 1:1 isn't referring to "the beginning" are automatically rejected.I simply want to know if there is a break in this timeline and if so, where it is.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

the bible does not explain with any detail the creation of the universe.

---

Indeed. This isn't about that. It is simply about time.

quote:

---

I've got a slightly different figure. when I added up the years from Adam to the birth of Noah I got 1,056 years.

---

Indeed. I overlooked the "hundred" part of either Jared, Methuselah, or Enoch so that's why I'm a hundred years off. But, this pushes the total number of years only to about 5900, which is still amazingly off and is still consistent with the claim that the Bible says life, the universe, and everything are only about 6000 years old.Moving on: Noah was 600 when the flood started: And the flood lased a year: So from the 1056 years we had previously, we add another 601 to get from the birth of Noah to the end of the flood:1056 + 601 = 1657Then we get a bunch of begats: So adding all of those up:2 + 35 + 30 + 34 + 30 + 32 + 30 + 29 + 70 = 292So we've got 1657 + 292 = 1949 years from the beginning to Abraham.

quote:

---

Tehrah died at 205 yrs of age when Abraham was 75yrs old.

---

Where do you find this? Indeed, the text says that Terah died at 205, but it doesn't say that Abraham was 75 at the time. It simply says that Terah died at 205: And, in fact, that would be a severe mathematical error on the part of the Bible to have Abraham born when Terah was 70 and yet be only 75 when Terah died 135 years later.In fact, the text indicates that Abraham leaves Haran while Terah is still alive: Thus, we get 1949 + 75 = 2024 years to get from the beginning to the covenant.By the way: You've skipped the year of the flood. Noah is 600 when it starts, 601 when it ends, and Arphaxad is born two years after that.

---

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.

Mr Jack responds to me:

quote:

---

5799 is very close to the age of the earth as given by the Jews.

---

Indeed. According to the Jewish calendar, it is the year 5769 and they count from the beginning.But, it appears I missed a "hundred and..." in one of the begat lists of Gen 5 so my number should be 5899. Given that the Bible doesn't have any real dates, the only way to get an actual number connected to reality is to tie the timeline to an actual date. I've chosen the founding of Solomon's Temple.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

Gen 11:31-32 ends with Terah traveling to Canaan with Abram, and died in Haran at the age of 205yrs old.

​

Gen 12;1-4 says that God made a covenant with Abraham and told him to leave Haran. Vs 4 says that he was 75yrs of Age.

---

Yes. I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at, then. Does it matter how old Terah was when he died? The timeline continues from when god made the covenant with Abraham which happened when he was 75. What does Terah's age at his death have to do with 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.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Does it matter how old Terah was when he died?

---

​

it simply adds to the timeline; from the beginning of the flood to the death of Terah are a total of 427yrs.

---

But the death of Terah is irrelevant to the timeline. We aren't concerned with when Terah died but rather how old he was when Abraham was born.

quote:

---

to the Abrahamic Coventant another 427yrs (this came into effect after the death of Terah)

---

Incorrect. As I said before, it would be an amazing mathematical error for Abraham to be only 75 when Terah died. Terah was 70 when Abraham was born: And Abraham was 75 when the covenant was established: Since Terah died when he was 205: It would be quite the feat for 135 years to pass between the birth of Abraham and the establishment of the covenant and yet Abraham be only 75 at the time.Just as we don't care how old Adam was when he died for the timeline, we don't care how old Terah was when he died. We only care about when the covenant was established and how old Abraham was when it happened.Thus, your entire statement is incorrect. From the end of the flood to the covenant is 367 years: From the end of the flood is 2+35+30+34+30+32+30+29+70+75 = 367 years.Now, Galatians tells us how many years passed between the covenant and the exodus: And 1 Kings tells us how many years passed between the exodus and the founding of the temple: Thus, we've got:From the beginning to the end of the flood: 1657 years.
From the end of the flood to the covenant: 367 years.
From the covenant to the exodus: 430 years.
From the exodus to the temple: 480 years.This is a total of 2934 years.Archaeological findings put the temple at about 956 BCE.Thus, 1657+367+430+480+956+2009 = 5899 years.Now, why are you still ignoring the year of the flood and why do you put the time between the exodus and the temple at 479 years when the text says 480?

quote:

---

this figure in no way makes the 'earth' 6062 yrs old though becuase the bible chronology is purely based on 'mankinds' history and not the history of the physical earth itself.

---

Incorrect. The "days" of creation are literal, 24-hour days. It says so in Genesis 1.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It would be quite the feat for 135 years to pass between the birth of Abraham and the establishment of the covenant and yet Abraham be only 75 at the time.

---

​

Why?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?If 135 years pass from the date of my birth to the moment of a specific event, how old am I when that event takes place?Surely you aren't saying I would be only 75 when I had been alive for 135 years, are you? Surely you understand that 75 != 135, yes?Terah is born. He lives for 70 years. At that point, Abraham is born. 75 more years pass. Abraham is now 75 and Terah is now 145. God makes a covenant with Abraham and tells him to get the hell out of the city. He does so. Terah continues to live and dies 60 years later at 205 in the same city that Abraham left. I am truly gob-smacked that you are claiming that the covenant happened after Terah died when the text clearly states that it happened before.Serious question: How do you add 70 and 75 and come up with a number other than 145? Are you saying 145 is actually greater than 205?Let's try it from the other side: If Terah was 205 when the covenant was made and Abraham was only 75 when the covenant was made, how old was Terah when Abraham ws born? Surely the answer to that question would be 205 - 75 = 130, right?But Terah isn't 130 when Abraham is born. He's 70. Surely you aren't saying that 205 - 75 = 70, are you?Terah is still alive when Abraham makes the covenant with god. He stays in Haran and lives for another 60 years after Abraham and Lot leave.

quote:

---

where are the years between Abraham being born and Tehrah dieing?

---

They're irrelevant. Just as we don't care about the years between Seth being born and his father, Adam, dying, we don't care about the years between Abraham being born and his father, Terah, dying. The only thing that matter is how hold the father was when the son was born. As soon as the son is born, the father becomes irrelevant.Abraham was born when Terah was 70, yes? That is the passage in question and it says that Terah was 70 when Abraham was born, yes? We agree on this, yes?Abraham made a covenant with god when Abraham was 75, yes? That is the passage in question and it says that Abraham was 75 when he left under command of god's covenant, yes? We agree on this, yes?So if Abraham is only 75 when this happens and Terah was only 70 when Abraham was born, how do you manage to calculate that Terah was dead when the text says he died at 205?Instead, this would make Terah 145. That is less than 205 thus it is clear that Terah was alive at the time of the covenant but stayed behind. He lived another 60 years after the covenant and died at 205.

quote:

---

If Tehrah was 205yrs when he died, you are missing 130 odd years because the covenent came into effect AFTER the death of Tehrah and he died when Abraham was 75 yrs old

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? If Abraham was born when Terah was 70 years hold, how could Terah possibly be 205 years old just 75 years later? Are you seriously claiming that 70 + 75 = 205?

quote:

---

Gen11 ends with Tehrah's death and Gen 12 begins with Abraham being told to leave for the land of Cannan.

---

That is true, but that is irrelevant. Genesis 11 ends by giving details of the life of Terah. Genesis 12 begins by giving details of the life of Abraham, thus we've gone back a bit to pick up where we left off.Just as we didn't care about the death of Adam when determining how hold Seth was when he sired Enos despite the fact that the text tells us when Adam died before it tells us how old Seth was when he sired Enos, we don't care about the death of Terah when determining how old Abraham was when he made the covenant with god despite the fact that the text tells us when Terah died before it tells us how old Abraham was when he made the covenant with god. Those are the verses in the order given. First we are told that Adam was 130 when he sired Seth. We are then told that Adam lived for another 800 years and died when he was 930. Only then are we told that Seth was 105 when he sired Enos.But you don't take that to mean 905 (800 + 105) years passed between the birth of Seth and the birth of Enos. No, you take it to mean that only 105 years passed because Seth, the father of Enos, is directly stated to be 105 when he sires Enos.Similarly, you don't take Gen 11-12 to mean 210 (135 + 75) years passed between the birth of Abraham and the covenant with god. No, you take it to mean that only 75 years passed because Abraham, the person who made the covenant with god, is directly stated to be 75 when he makes the covenant.I'm deadly serious here: Are you claiming that 70 + 75 = 205?

---

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 responds to PaulK:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Bible doesn't say that. Where does it come from ?

---

​

Gen 12:4

---

No, it doesn't. This tells us Abraham was 75 when he made the covenant with god.Where do you find any indication that Terah was dead in that passage? Yes, Gen 11:32 tells us how old Terah was when he died: But how do you conclude that Abraham was 75 when Terah died since the text specifically states that Terah was only 70 when Abraham was born: If we are going to say that the following passage: Is indicative that Seth was 105 when he sired Enos, where do you find justification that Terah was something other than 70 when he sired Abraham?Just to put dates on it:Year 0: Terah is born.
Year 70: Abraham is born.
Year 145: Abraham makes the covenant with god.
Year 205: Terah dies.

quote:

---

Abraham is probably mentioned first because he's the most famous and the forefather of the Moses people.

---

Incorrect. Abraham is definitively mentioned first because he is the eldest. That's the way Judaism lists generations.

quote:

---

Its most likley that Haran was the firstborn because his daughter was old enough to marry Terah’s other son Nahor. Ge 11:29.

---

Incorrect. Just because Nahor marries his niece doesn't mean he's older than Abraham. Not a single date is mentioned anywhere here so we cannot say how old any of them are with any certainty other than the fact that Abraham is younger than 75 as he is about to have an important event happen to him at 75 when he had already moved with his wife to Haran.But even if we take your completely unjustified claim to be the case, there is still a problem:Life, the universe, and everything is still only about 6000 years old. This is in direct contradiction to your statement in Message 64 that: Since the timeline from the beginning, when there was no earth, to now, given the chronology of the Bible, is only about 6000 years, your claim is trivially proven false. The Bible quite clearly states that the earth is only 6000 years old.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

At Genesis 11:31-32 'Terah took Abram and Lot...and they went with him out of Ur to go to the land of Cannan, ..They cam to Haran and took up dwelling there.
Vs32: And the days of Terah came to be 205 years then terah died in Haran'

​

Now moving on from Terahs death, Genesis 12 now reports that God tells Abraham to leave Ur and go to Cannan.

---

Incorrect. Using your logic, Adam dies when Seth is 105 which would make him 825 when Seth was born despite the fact that it directly states that Adam was only 130 when Seth was born.But you don't think that to be the case. You agree that Adam was 130 when Seth was born and lived for another 800 years after that thus Adam was alive and 235 years old when Seth had his own child, Enos.By your logic, the fact that Adam is stated to have died in verse 5 and Seth is talked about in verse 6 necessarily means that Adam is dead in verse 6. But you don't take that to be the case. Even though verse 5 specifically talks about Adam dying, he is still alive in verse 6.Same thing here. Terah is 70 when Abraham is born and despite the fact that verse 11:32 specifically talks about Terah dying, he is still alive verse 12:4. The end of Chapter 11 is talking about Terah and the passages, like all the begats that came before, seek to tie up the story of Terah before focusing on Abraham. This is not an indication that Terah is dead before anything happens to Abraham. It's just that the text isn't going to talk about Terah ever again. So was Shem alive or dead when Salah was born? Verse 11:11 specifically states that Shem dies. But Salah isn't mentioned as being born until 11:12. So is Shem alive or dead? By the logic you are applying to Terah, Shem is 100 when Arphaxad is born, lives for 500 years after that, and then Arphaxad, who somehow has only aged 35 years in the process, finally sires Salah.I really want to hear your answer to this question. I am not asking it for my health. If you bother to respond to this message, this is the one question I want you to answer:Are you seriously claiming that 70 + 75 = 205?Yes or no. You can give your justification after you answer that question with a direct yes or no, but I need you to make a definitive statement of yes or no. I need you to go on the record.

---

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.

PaulK writes:

quote:

---

It looks to me as if Milcah's father is a different Haran because Genesis 11:29 specifically describes that Haran as the father of Milcah and Iscah while Abram's brother is described as the father of Lot. Also it seems a little unlikely that Nahor would marry his niece.

---

Why can't Haran, brother to Abraham and Nahor, be the father of both Iscah and Lot as well as Milcah?It is clear that the names aren't unique because Terah's father's name is "Nahor" and he names one of his children "Nahor" so it is possible that this is a different "Haran," but there is no reason not to think it's the same one and it wouldn't be that unusual for him to marry his niece. Chronologically, it isn't impossible. We aren't told how old Abraham, Nahor, and Haran are with respect to each other. All we know is that Abraham is less than 75. That's plenty of time for Haran to have a daughter and for Nahor to marry her.Edited by Rrhain, : Typo correction.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

Haran becoming a father before Abram and Nahor are even married indicates that he was the eldest son because the custom in those days was that the eldest married first.

---

Incorrect. You're confusing sons with daughters. Abraham is listed first because Abraham is the eldest.

quote:

---

but they stayed in Haran for some time first and then the death of Terah is mentioned

---

Irrelevant. Once Abraham is born, Terah is of no consequence. Terah is 70 when Abraham is born because Abraham is listed first. Therefore, the covenant happens 145 years after the birth of Terah.

quote:

---

If he didnt die until later, why does his name disappear from the record at this point and not at some later point.

---

Asked and answered in Message 20Since you don't make this bizarre interpretation that the mention of a death means that all later passages are to be interpreted as meaning the person is dead at the time of the events described in the later passages, why are you suddenly changing gears here?Adam is described as dying AND THEN Seth is described as siring Enos. But you don't interpret the birth of Enos as taking place AFTER the death of Adam, do you? So why do you interpret the covenant taking place AFTER the death of Terah when the phrasing is identical to all the begats earlier?Adam is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Enos but you don't take that to mean Adam was dead when Enos was born.
Seth is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Cainan but you don't take that to mean Seth was dead when Cainan was born.
Enos is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Mahalaleel but you don't take that to mean Enos was dead when Mahalaleel was born.
Cainan is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Jared but you don't take that to mean Cainan was dead when Jared was born.
Mahalaleel is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Enoch but you don't take that to mean Mahalaleel was dead when Enoch was born.
Jared is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Methuselah but you don't take that to mean Jared was dead when Methuselah was born.
Enoch is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Lamech but you don't take that to mean Enoch was dead when Lamech was born.
Methuselah is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Noah but you don't take that to mean Methuselah was dead when Noah was born.
Lamech is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Shem but you don't take that to mean Lamech was dead when Shem was born.
Noah is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Arphaxad but you don't take that to mean Noah was dead when Arphaxad was born.
Shem is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Salah but you don't take that to mean Shem was dead when Salah was born.
Arphaxad is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Eber but you don't take that to mean Arphaxad was dead when Eber was born.
Salah is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Peleg but you don't take that to mean Salah was dead when Peleg was born.
Eber is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Reu but you don't take that to mean Eber was dead when Reu was born.
Peleg is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Serug but you don't take that to mean Peleg was dead when Serug was born.
Reu is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Nahor but you don't take that to mean Reu was dead when Nahor was born.
Serug is described as dying AND THEN we are told of the birth of Terah but you don't take that to mean Serug was dead when Terah was born.So given all this precedent where the death of someone is not taken to mean that all passages after that description happen after the death, why are you making an exception for this one?Of course, in the end, it isn't of much consequence: Whether the covenant was made 145 years after Terah was born or 205 years, the timeline of the Bible is still around 6000 years. Galatians and 1 Kings tell us that 910 years pass between the covenant and the founding of the temple which is generally considered to have happened about 956 BCE. Thus, we can hook the timeline listed in the Bible to an actual event which means that from "the beginning" listed in Genesis 1:1, only about 6000 years have passed, according to the Bible.Thus, the idea that you, Peg, put forward that the Bible doesn't say life, the universe, and everything is only 6000 years old is shown to be false.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

Ok, but does the bible say that Abram is the oldest?

---

It doesn't have to.

quote:

---

so even though the account mentions the Terah died and then Abram left for Canaan, You are still convinced that Terah died after Abram left for Canaan? Why?

​

Please show me scripturally how you draw this conclusion.

---

Oh, my flipping gods. How many times do I need to post the same information before you pay attention? Message 8
Message 10
Message 16
Message 18Because it directly says so. Abraham was born when Terah was 70. The covenant was made when Abraham was 75. Terah died at 205.Since 70 + 75 = 145 and because 145 < 205, then it necessarily follows that the covenant was made while Terah was still alive.And the point you keep forgetting is, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW OLD TERAH WAS WHEN THE COVENANT WAS MADE. It only matters how old Abraham was when it was made. Abraham was 75 when it was made.As I asked you directly, and which you seem to have completely avoided, I want you to answer just this single question:Are you claiming that 70 + 75 = 205?I really want to hear your answer to this question. I am not asking it for my health. If you bother to respond to this message, this is the one question I want you to answer:Are you seriously claiming that 70 + 75 = 205?Yes or no. You can give your justification after you answer that question with a direct yes or no, but I need you to make a definitive statement of yes or no. I need you to go on the record.

quote:

---

the difference here is that Adam is said to die 800 years AFTER the birth of Seth.

---

Indeed. But we don't learn about the birth of Enos until AFTER we learn of the death of Adam. Thus, by your logic, Adam was dead when Enos was born because the verse describing Adam's death comes BEFORE the verse describing Enos' birth.Since you don't make that claim for any of the rest of the geneology, why do you suddenly shift for this one single event?Adam was 130 years when he sired Seth and then lived for another 800 years and died. When Seth was 105, he sired Enos.You count 130 and add only 105 to get 235 years from the birth of Adam to the birth of Enos, not 130 + 800 to claim that 930 years passed. Even though we are told that Adam died, the verse describing the birth of Enos is describing a moment when Adam was still alive. The text is never going to mention Adam again, so it ties up his storyline before continuing with his son's.Terah was 70 when he sired Abraham and then lived for another 135 years and died. When Abraham was 75, he made a covenant with god.You count 70 and add only 75 to get 145 years from the birth of Terah to the establishment of the covenent, not 70 + 135 to claim that 205 years passed. Even though we are told that Terah died, the verse describing the establishment of the covenant is describing a moment when Terah was still alive. The text is never going to mention TErah again, so it ties up his storyline before continuing with his son's. Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes? Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes? Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes?So if the ones from Gen 5 cause us to claim only 235 years from Adam to Enos and not 930, why would the ones from Gen 11-12 cause us to claim 205 years from Terah to covenant and not 145?

quote:

---

It doest say that he fathered Seth at age 130 then died.

---

Huh? The text doesn't say that Terah fathered Abraham and then died, either. It says that Terah fathered Abraham and eventually died at 205. Now that that storyline is closed, it goes on to Abraham to point out that a covenant was established when Abraham was 75. Since Abraham was born when Terah was 70, that means Terah was alive when it happened and lived for 60 years after that event, just as Adam was alive when Enos was born and lived for 695 years after that event.

quote:

---

this is completely different to what is being said about Terah.

---

Huh? The very phrasings are practically identical! Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes? Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes? Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes?So if the ones from Gen 5 cause us to claim only 235 years from Adam to Enos and not 930, why would the ones from Gen 11-12 cause us to claim 205 years from Terah to covenant and not 145?

quote:

---

The accounts are completely different.

---

Huh? The two accounts are identical! Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes? Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes?So if the ones from Gen 5 cause us to claim only 235 years from Adam to Enos and not 930, why would the ones from Gen 11-12 cause us to claim 205 years from Terah to covenant and not 145?

quote:

---

one is a record of the family line, the other is a story of one man Terah and his travels.

---

So "begatting sons and daughters" is functionally different from "traveling"? How?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Thus, the idea that you, Peg, put forward that the Bible doesn't say life, the universe, and everything is only 6000 years old is shown to be false.

---

​

i think we'll agree to disagree on that one.

---

You mean we've managed to arrive at more than 13 billion years? Have we not counted the entire timeline from "the beginning"? Are there other passages that list dates we haven't found? The temple wasn't founded about 956 BCE and thus hooking the timeline to that date isn't valid?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

You seem to be making the questionable assumption that Day 1 begins at Gen 1:1.

---

As I pointed out in the original post, claims that Gen 1:1 is not immediately followed by Gen 1:2, Gen 1:3, etc. are not going to be entertained. Since Genesis 1 starts at "the beginning" and immediately describes the events that happened on the "first day," claims that something happened between "the beginning" and the "first day" are inherently nonsensical. The "first day" starts at "the beginning."What part of "first day" implies that there was a day before it? That's what "first" means: There are no other days before it. If there were, it wouldn't be "first" but would be "later." The "first day" starts at "the beginning." Therefore, if we count up the timeline from "the beginning," then we have accounted for all of existence. If we can then hook that timeline onto an actual historical event, we can then directly calculate how old the Bible claims life, the universe, and everything to be.

quote:

---

So from a literary perspective, Day 1 starts with the "and God said" of Gen 1:3.

---

Incorrect. The "first day" starts at "the beginning." That's the entire point of calling it "first." If there were any days before it, then it wouldn't be "first" but would be "later."

quote:

---

As further evidence of this, note that the account of the six Days nowhere addresses the creation of the earth itself;

---

Incorrect. The earth is specifically described as being created on the third day:

quote:

---

the account assumes that the earth is already here before Day 1 begins.

---

Incorrect. The text immediately starts out by saying the earth did not exist:

quote:

---

Thus, even with a 24-hour day assumption, there is a break in the timeline

---

Only if one assumes that "first" actually means "later" and "without form and void" means "having form and existing." Since that is not the case, your conclusion is trivially shown to be false. "White" does not mean "black."

quote:

---

between the original creation of the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1)

---

Gen 1:1 does not describe any creation. It describes that an event happened in the past at "the beginning" and sets up the story so that the listener knows that what is going to follow is the specifics of that event.Now, since your comments are clearly off-topic, please let it go. If you want to discuss it, start a new 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:

---

A. The whole family travel to Canaan without Terah

​

B. The whole family travel to Canaan with Terah

​

C. Terah dies in Haran and then Abraham Travels to Canaan

​

D. Terah doesnt die and Abraham travels to Canaan

---

None of the above.The whole family travels to Haran: Terah dies there: But before Terah dies there, Abraham leaves: Now that I've answered your question, will you please answer mine:Are you saying that 70 + 75 = 205?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

you won't find the meaning of the text if you ignore such implications.

---

I am not ignoring them. I simply do not want to get sidetracked. The topic is the direct statement by some that the Bible "doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old" as if there were no indication of any sort of timeline in the Bible. Clearly, the Bible does have a timeline and that timeline can be hooked to an historical event. Ergo, we can then trace back the timeline to determine how old the Bible is.This isn't a thread about whether or not the "day" mentioned in Genesis 1 is meant as a literal, 24-hour day. I claim it is. There are others who claim it isn't. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

quote:

---

Day 3 describes a separation of dry land from water.

---

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.

quote:

---

What do you think the waters of Day 2 were resting on? Or the "deep" of Gen 1:2?

---

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.

quote:

---

No, "formless and void" does not mean "non-existent", it means "barren" or "desolate".

---

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.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.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. Once again, the imagery is of an earth that does not exist for the heavens are empty here, too. Again, the implication of "emptiness."The idea that a phrase of "nothingness and emptiness" can possibly be interpreted to mean "actually exists and has a form" is naught but trying to rationalize things away."Black" does not mean "white."Now, once again, you are completely off topic. If you want to discuss what Genesis 1 says, 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.

I have asked you nicely twice to please take your arguments about what Genesis 1 "really" means to a new thread. For the purposes of this thread, when Genesis 1 says, "the beginning," it really means "the beginning" and not "later" and the "days" mentioned are literal, 24-hour days.We get it. You don't agree. Fine. 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.