Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 316 (499873)
02-21-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
02-21-2009 5:11 AM


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.
Genesis 11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:
He lives for 70 years. At that point, Abraham is born.
Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
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.
Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
Terah continues to live and dies 60 years later at 205 in the same city that Abraham left.
11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
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?
Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
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?
Genesis 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
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.
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 5:11 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 6:52 AM Rrhain has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 17 of 316 (499876)
02-21-2009 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
02-21-2009 6:40 AM


Rrhain writes:
He lives for 70 years. At that point, Abraham is born.
Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
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.
Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
Terah continues to live and dies 60 years later at 205 in the same city that Abraham left.
Im only going to reply to this because its pointless going any further until we get this sorted out.
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.
So tell me how Genesis 11 comes after Genesis 12. Becasue you seem to have switched the two around and put Gen 12 before the death of Terah which is reported in Gen 11.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 02-21-2009 6:40 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 02-21-2009 7:20 AM Peg has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 18 of 316 (499877)
02-21-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
02-21-2009 6:21 AM


Peg responds to PaulK:
quote:
quote:
The Bible doesn't say that. Where does it come from ?
Gen 12:4
No, it doesn't.
Genesis 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
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:
Genesis 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
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:
Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
If we are going to say that the following passage:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
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.
Genesis 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
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:
Peg writes:
No does the bible say the earth is 6,000 years old.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 6:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 02-22-2009 12:21 AM Rrhain has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 316 (499879)
02-21-2009 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
02-21-2009 6:21 AM


quote:
Gen 12:4
Genesis 12:4 only says that Abraham as 75 years old when he left Haran. It does not mention Terah's age or say that Terah was dead.
So where does it say that Terah was dead when Abram left Haran ?
quote:
Abraham is probably mentioned first because he's the most famous and the forefather of the Moses people. Its most likley that Haran was the firstborn because his daughter was old enough to marry Terah’s other son Nahor. Ge 11:29
Perhaps you would like to produce some actual evidence. For instance are there any genealogies that order the names as you suggest ? Or is it just another of your endless invented excuses.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 6:21 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 02-21-2009 7:28 AM PaulK has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 20 of 316 (499880)
02-21-2009 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
02-21-2009 6:52 AM


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.
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
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.
Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11:11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. Shem lived 600 years.
11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 6:52 AM Peg has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 21 of 316 (499881)
02-21-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
02-21-2009 7:11 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2009 7:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2009 3:38 AM Rrhain has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 22 of 316 (500016)
02-22-2009 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rrhain
02-21-2009 7:04 AM


ok, we are obviously reading the account differently which is why we are getting different figures.
Gen11:27-32 writes:
And this is the history of Te′rah. Te′rah became father to A′bram, Na′hor and Ha′ran; and Ha′ran became father to Lot.
28Later Ha′ran died while in company with Te′rah his father in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chalde′ans.
29And A′bram and Na′hor proceeded to take wives for themselves. The name of A′bram’s wife was Sar′ai, while the name of Na′hor’s wife was Mil′cah, the daughter of Ha′ran, the father of Mil′cah and father of Is′cah.
30But Sar′ai continued to be barren; she had no child.
31After that Te′rah took A′bram his son and Lot, the son of Ha′ran, his grandson, and Sar′ai his daughter-in-law, the wife of A′bram his son, and they went with him out of Ur of the Chalde′ans to go to the land of Ca′naan. In time they came to Ha′ran and took up dwelling there.
32And the days of Te′rah came to be two hundred and five years. Then Te′rah died in Ha′ran.
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...its also seen in the account about Jacod being given Leah to marry instead of Rachel, Leah was the oldest and her father said it wasnt customary for the younger to be married first.
VS 31...After Harans death they all left Ur together to travel to Canaan, but they stayed in Haran for some time first and then the death of Terah is mentioned...while they are still in Haran.
If he didnt die until later, why does his name disappear from the record at this point and not at some later point. Why is he no longer mentioned along with the rest of the family in the move to Canaan?
The way im understanding the story of Terah is that he moved all his family from their original home in Ur to move to Canaan, along the way, they stay over in Haran, but here the aged Terah dies and then Abraham and the family continues the journey to Canaan without Terah.
this is why i have added an additional 130 years to the timeline, because if Abraham didnt move on until after Terahs death, then Terah really was 205yrs old at the time of God making a coventant with him.
Gen 12:4 says that Abram was 75 yrs old when he left Haran.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rrhain, posted 02-21-2009 7:04 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 02-23-2009 2:13 AM Peg has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 316 (500024)
02-22-2009 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rrhain
02-21-2009 7:28 AM


quote:
Why can't Haran, brother to Abraham and Nahor, be the father of both Iscah and Lot as well as Milcah?
Turn it around, why should it be the same Haran ? As you admit the name is not unique. And there's no other link. Milcah's father is specifically identified as the father of Milcah and Iscah, quite possibly to indicate that it is a different person. If he was the same Haran why not mention Lot with Milcah and Iscah ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 02-21-2009 7:28 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 316 (500102)
02-23-2009 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
02-22-2009 12:21 AM


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 20
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.
Since 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 02-22-2009 12:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 02-23-2009 3:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 25 of 316 (500109)
02-23-2009 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rrhain
02-23-2009 2:13 AM


Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. You're confusing sons with daughters. Abraham is listed first because Abraham is the eldest.
Ok, but does the bible say that Abram is the oldest?
Rrhain writes:
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.
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.
Rrhain writes:
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?
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?
the difference here is that Adam is said to die 800 years AFTER the birth of Seth. It doest say that he fathered Seth at age 130 then died. It says 'the days of Adam after he fathered Seth came to be 800yrs'
this is completely different to what is being said about Terah.
The accounts are completely different. one is a record of the family line, the other is a story of one man Terah and his travels.
Rrhain writes:
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.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 02-23-2009 2:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 02-23-2009 5:24 AM Peg has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 26 of 316 (500119)
02-23-2009 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
02-23-2009 3:43 AM


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 18
Because 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.
5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes?
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes?
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
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!
5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes?
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes?
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
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!
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
Those two verses are functionally equivalent, yes?
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 02-23-2009 3:43 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 02-23-2009 7:53 AM Rrhain has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 27 of 316 (500122)
02-23-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rrhain
02-23-2009 5:24 AM


Wow, Rrhain! Your patience is amazing!
What is it, Peg, that blinds you to the obvious so terribly? You've made up your mind, so now it's unchangeable? Or you just can't force yourself to say "Oh, I see now!"? Or the Cousin of Morton's Demon has you in his grip? Peg, you need to explain how to decide which parts of this biblical timeline are literal, while other parts are figurative. It's confusing to we uninitiated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 02-23-2009 5:24 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 02-23-2009 6:28 PM Coragyps has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 28 of 316 (500166)
02-23-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coragyps
02-23-2009 7:53 AM


Coragyps writes:
What is it, Peg, that blinds you to the obvious so terribly? You've made up your mind, so now it's unchangeable? Or you just can't force yourself to say "Oh, I see now!"? Or the Cousin of Morton's Demon has you in his grip? Peg, you need to explain how to decide which parts of this biblical timeline are literal, while other parts are figurative. It's confusing to we uninitiated.
Tell me how you read the account...
Genesis Chapter 11.
Gen 11:26And Te′rah lived on for seventy years, after which he became father to A′bram, Na′hor and Ha′ran.
27'And this is the history of Te′rah.
Te′rah became father to A′bram, Na′hor and Ha′ran; and Ha′ran became father to Lot. 28Later Ha′ran died while in company with Te′rah his father in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chalde′ans.'
29And A′bram and Na′hor proceeded to take wives for themselves.
31After that Te′rah took A′bram his son and Lot, the son of Ha′ran, his grandson, and Sar′ai his daughter-in-law, the wife of A′bram his son, and they went with him out of Ur of the Chalde′ans to go to the land of Ca′naan. In time they came to Ha′ran and took up dwelling there. 32And the days of Te′rah came to be two hundred and five years. Then Te′rah died in Ha′ran.'
Genesis Chapter 12
12 And God proceeded to say to A′bram: Go your way out of your country and from your relatives and from the house of your father to the country that I shall show you; 2and I shall make a great nation out of you and I shall bless you and I will make your name great; and prove yourself a blessing. 3And I will bless those who bless you, and him that calls down evil upon you I shall curse, and all the families of the ground will certainly bless themselves by means of you.
4At that A′bram went just as God had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And A′bram was 75 years old when he went out from Ha′ran. 5So A′bram took Sar′ai his wife and Lot the son of his brother and all the goods that they had accumulated and the souls whom they had acquired in Ha′ran, and they got on their way out to go to the land of Ca′naan. Finally they came to the land of Ca′naan.
So that is the account,
Which is correct do you think?
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
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 02-23-2009 7:53 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Rrhain, posted 02-25-2009 6:09 AM Peg has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 29 of 316 (500361)
02-25-2009 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rrhain
02-14-2009 5:34 AM


rhrain writes:
I simply want to know if there is a break in this timeline and if so, where it is.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rrhain, posted 02-14-2009 5:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 02-25-2009 6:01 AM kbertsche has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 30 of 316 (500381)
02-25-2009 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by kbertsche
02-25-2009 2:19 AM


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:
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were 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:
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 02-25-2009 2:19 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 02-25-2009 9:42 AM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024