PDA

View Full Version : Noah's Ark Finally Found?



Adelphos
04-27-2010, 10:58 AM
Have they finally found the ark which Noah and his family escaped the wrath of God in?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-arafat/

The article is in error, however, when it states that Noah was commanded to put "two of each SPECIES" on the ark. He was commanded no such thing.

Noah was in fact commanded to put two of each KIND on the ark, and the difference is highly significant.

Michael Hanel
04-27-2010, 06:54 PM
I've heard they found nearby an autographed copy of the Gospel of John too. The first edition, mind you.

Adelphos
04-27-2010, 08:07 PM
They've had a lot of false starts concerning the Ark, but there's been so much activity in that region that it's almost certainly to be there, and this one sounds like it might have some teeth to it.

They say that Ararat where this expedition went is the hardest mountain in the world to climb, even above Everest, because the conditions are extremely brutal in this area, so you don't just go waltzing up there.

They've had reports for years of locals affirming that the Ark was up there, and one general even had his soldier shell a certain area where he and his troops said the Ark rested because he wanted to keep the "religious fanatics" away from the site.

Of course, the discovery, if true, won't settle anything, but it will act as yet another confirmation of the biblical account it if turns out to be true, just as archaelogy does in other portions of the Bible.

But as the Lord Jesus said, so it applies here as well -- "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

Dan Phillips
04-27-2010, 09:22 PM
The discovery would be very cool, no doubt. But don't those boards and beams look awfully polished and in-good-condition to you? For being 4K+ years old?

Michael Hanel
04-27-2010, 09:41 PM
But as the Lord Jesus said, so it applies here as well -- "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

This is more what I was getting at. Whether it is the ark or not, isn't really important if the Gospel is still not acknowledged. I'm highly skeptical, clearly the burden of proof is on them to show that it could be, but even if it were, it's of rather minor import to my faith. Now if they find the bones of Jesus, well that's a different story... :p

Adelphos
04-27-2010, 10:35 PM
...Now if they find the bones of Jesus, well that's a different story... :p

I already know where the bones of Jesus are --

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke 24:39

That's post-resurrection. And everybody else will know where his bones are in the not too distant future, even those who don't believe in him, or who don't even believe that he ever existed --

"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Revelation 1:7

Soxfan23
04-27-2010, 11:41 PM
I wouldn't put too much stock in the claims. It has already been claimed twice already. Also, the genre of Genesis 1-11 in my opinion demands that we view it differently than just adding up years and arriving at 2800 BC. There's more to it than some religio-historical interpretation. The genealogies are selective and serve other purposes than historical ones. While I'm sure there's some historical truth to the story about Noah and the Ark, it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says." I know this is controversial stuff and bothers some evangelicals (of which I am one), but all that to say I just wouldn't put too much stock in it. As Witherington said on his blog, it's a good possibility that it's an ark shrine.

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 07:43 AM
...it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says

Yes, it is just as simple as that, and there is not a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who became born again by any other way.

""And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:2-3"

Soxfan23
04-28-2010, 09:54 AM
Yes, it is just as simple as that, and there is not a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who became born again by any other way.

""And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:2-3"



That's a straw-man, Adelphos. It was obvious I was referring to the Ark in particular and Genesis 1-11 in general. You then have to turn it around and relate it to soteriological matters and make it look like I don't have "childlike faith." You may think you're "defending truth," but historicity of the Ark is far from a cardinal doctrine. Even many conservative evangelical scholars don't hold to the wooden literalism which you espouse. It's a genre issue, i.e. an issue with how we're supposed to read it. It's not an issue with the text itself.

Please don't resort to the same old fundamentalist tactics when making your argument. Trust me, I love Jesus and fully believe in the inspiration of Scripture. There's no need to question my faith because I don't take a woodenly literal approach to Scripture 100% of the time.

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 10:01 AM
I can only respond to what you write, not to what may be bouncing around in your mind. When you state "it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says" I have to assume that you meant what you actually wrote.

Furthermore, the Ark is a soteriological issue. If Adam and Eve aren't literal historical figures, and if the Ark of Noah is a fable, then I have no basis to believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a literal historcal fact.

And neither do you.

Sansom48
04-28-2010, 10:04 AM
I could be wrong (and many times I am) but I don't believe that he is challenging the physical reality of the Ark, but mainly just the dates. I think he may be saying that the Ark could potentially be older than a rigid 4800 years.

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 10:12 AM
Oh, I think he's disputing far more than the dates.

Moreover, orthodox Christians down through the centuries have held to the view that the chronologies in Genesis are sequential and exact.

Only since modern science with its grossly inaccurate radiometric dating methodologies has this been disputed by a relatively large number of people.

A simple childlike faith also holds that the chronologies in Genesis are sequential and exact.

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 11:48 AM
The discovery would be very cool, no doubt. But don't those boards and beams look awfully polished and in-good-condition to you? For being 4K+ years old?

Actually, the wood, according to some, is/would be petrified, and probably have been encased almost wholly in ice. Couple that with the fact that God commanded Noah to use gopher wood, which is undoubtedly a unique and very tough type of wood. So the pictures seem to match that.

However, as everyone recognizes, it's going to take some serious verifications to sort it all out. And we can't be surprised if it turns out to be false or a hoax, for there have already been many of those.

On the other hand, it if turns out to be true, it also wouldn't surprise me, for the Ark DID come to rest, and it very well would have probably been preserved in the icy climate of this expedition, if that is in fact where it came to rest.

MGVH
04-28-2010, 12:06 PM
More info here: http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-update

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 12:13 PM
Well, that's sobering. Randall Price has a pretty good reputation, so I am definitely skeptical now.

Soxfan23
04-28-2010, 01:39 PM
I could be wrong (and many times I am) but I don't believe that he is challenging the physical reality of the Ark, but mainly just the dates. I think he may be saying that the Ark could potentially be older than a rigid 4800 years.



You're not wrong. Thanks for understanding my point

Soxfan23
04-28-2010, 01:55 PM
I can only respond to what you write, not to what may be bouncing around in your mind. When you state "it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says" I have to assume that you meant what you actually wrote.

Furthermore, the Ark is a soteriological issue. If Adam and Eve aren't literal historical figures, and if the Ark of Noah is a fable, then I have no basis to believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a literal historcal fact.

And neither do you.


Adelphos, it was VERY clear from my post above that my quote was in reference to the ark in particular and Genesis 1-11 in general. If you can't gather that, then you're just looking for things.

And to say the ark is a soteriological issue is to use the same old slippery slope argument so common amongst apologists that is dead wrong time and again. My faith doesn't rest on the ark. Maybe yours does. If it does I say it rests in the wrong place, and I feel insulted that you are insinuating that I am not a Christian because of these views that are even held by many conservative scholars. Your rhetoric does not help and is disturbing. I believe Adam and Eve were historical figures and I believe in Noah as a historical figure. My only point was that the genre of Genesis 1-11 demands that we read it different than some woodenly literal factual historical account. Moreover, I was particularly aiming my claims against the young earth people and apologists who just add the chronologies up in the Bible and somehow think they can reach the exact date of events that took place in the primeval history. It's not so simple. Maybe your "childlike faith" believes in a 7-headed Leviathan as well.

As far as orthodox Christians believing the genealogies are sequential, perhaps they did (though I doubt it's as unanimous as you say). But they also believed the earth was flat and the sun journeyed below the earth when it was night time. Does that mean it's true?

You're trying to make the Bible fit your modern standards of what it should look like and how it should behave. The problem is not the Bible's, it is yours. It has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, it has to do with how it behaves vs. how you think it SHOULD behave.

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 01:58 PM
Well, these words of yours indicate that you don't believe that the biblical account of Noah's Ark as recorded in Genesis is one hundred percent accurate --

"While I'm sure there's some historical truth to the story about Noah and the Ark, it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says."

The phrase "some historical truth" is an explicit decree that not all of the biblical account is accurate.

That's why I said your position is unorthodox. If you DO believe that the biblical account is one hundred percent accurate, then you might want to be a little more diligent in your wording.

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 02:07 PM
Adelphos, it was VERY clear from my post above that my quote was in reference to the ark in particular and Genesis 1-11 in general. If you can't gather that, then you're just looking for things.

As I said, I can only go by what you write. You stated explicitly that it is not as simple as believing the Bible.

It is in fact that simple. And if you think I was attacking your faith then you are personalizing the matter.

In short, your asssertion is flat wrong, and by historical orthodox standards would be considered rank heresy.


And to say the ark is a soteriological issue is to use the same old slippery slope argument so common amongst apologists that is dead wrong time and again. My faith doesn't rest on the ark. Maybe yours does.

Talk about strawmen! I related it all to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and why that is important. As I said, you are personalizing this with ad hominems.


My only point was that the genre of Genesis 1-11 demands that we read it different than some woodenly literal factual historical account. Moreover, I was particularly aiming my claims against the young earth people and apologists who just add the chronologies up in the Bible and somehow think they can reach the exact date of events that took place in the primeval history. It's not so simple. Maybe your "childlike faith" believes in a 7-headed Leviathan as well.

There you go again with the ad hominem -- "maybe your childlike faith believes in a 7-headed Leviathan".

I would say your ad hominems are what is truly disturbing.

And the reason we read Genesis literally is because that is CLEARLY how Jesus read it.


As far as orthodox Christians believing the genealogies are sequential, perhaps they did (though I doubt it's as unanimous as you say).

I never said any such thing.

Soxfan23
04-28-2010, 02:35 PM
Nevermind. These conversations never go anywhere. My original point looks correct, don't put too much stock in this claim of finding the Ark.

Joshua Luna
04-28-2010, 03:37 PM
Moreover, orthodox Christians down through the centuries have held to the view that the chronologies in Genesis are sequential and exact.

But what does the Bible say?

i.e. Christian interpretation by the majority (as over and above what the Bible plainly says) isn't always correct.


Only since modern science with its grossly inaccurate radiometric dating methodologies has this been disputed by a relatively large number of people.

I won't dispute the "large number of people" part, but various methods of addressing the chronological methods of the Bible is something that has long been debated in terms of, "How should we understand these numbers." This issue has exited long before modern dating methods which added another facet to the debate.


A simple childlike faith also holds that the chronologies in Genesis are sequential and exact.

In your opinion, is this something Genesis (or the Bible) states emphatically (chapter:verse for your perspective would be helpful) or an assertion of how the data must be interpreted based on the "child like faith" principle above?

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 03:46 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment by the noted Hebrew scholar, James Barr, the only exception being that I don't know how many Hebrew instructors at "world class" universities would agree or not, which is immaterial --

"… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

Source -- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/Quotes/barr.asp

This has been the historic position of orthodox Christianity, and it is CLEARLY what Genesis PLAINLY states.

Notice I said "states"

That is CLEARLY what Genesis STATES. Whether one INTERPRETS it that way is another matter, but as I said, Jesus CLEARLY interpreted Genesis literally, and so did Peter, and so does the Holy Spirit.

Joshua Luna
04-28-2010, 03:57 PM
Also, the genre of Genesis 1-11 in my opinion demands that we view it differently than just adding up years and arriving at 2800 BC. There's more to it than some religio-historical interpretation. The genealogies are selective and serve other purposes than historical ones. While I'm sure there's some historical truth to the story about Noah and the Ark, it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says."

While I see what you were trying to say the appeal to genre and looking beyond religio-historical interpretation do bear certain overtones in the broader debate (e.g. see Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation and Greg Beale's The Errosion of Inerrancy). Some who would classify themselves as Evangelicals would argue, based on genre and religio-historical interpretation, that these texts should not be taken as historical. That said I do think the context of the above quote was that the "" indicated common arguement ("believing what the Bible says") of 'simply' adding the chronological dates without broaching the other Biblical data informing chronological studies and the context (genre) of the specific narratives. Of course as you noted this is a very controversial topic and tossing in "some historical truth" instead of "historical true when we account for chronological methodologies found in the Bible" did look like a red herring in favor of the text only being some (i.e. not completely) historical.

Joshua Luna
04-28-2010, 04:02 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment by the noted Hebrew scholar, James Barr, the only exception being that I don't know how many Hebrew instructors at "world class" universities would agree or not, which is immaterial --

It isn't immaterial as this is an appeal to authority. And for what it is worth, there are Bible-Believing professors (much more conservative than Barr was fwiw) would, based on how the Bible deals with chronological gaps and dates, would disagree.


Notice I said "states"

That is CLEARLY what Genesis STATES. Whether one INTERPRETS it that way is another matter, but as I said, Jesus CLEARLY interpreted Genesis literally, and so did Peter, and so does the Holy Spirit.

Ok, so you have a verse that states this and adds it all up?

(I only see a quote from AnswersInGenesis.)

EDIT: I am still chuckling at the appeal to Barr in regards to inerrancy and conservatives. Adelphos, while AiG appeals to Barr, it should be known that Barr didn't believe in inerrancy and he was quite antagonistic toward evangelicals. His volume on Semantics is extremely valuable (if not slightly overstated imo, but exceptional nonetheless) but he really isn't someone to appeal to in regards to inerrancy. Actually, his general point is to force the conclusion it cannot be read any other way (which reputable scholars of Biblical interpretation, i.e. Bible-Believers, don't necessarily agree with) as to affirm his stance that the Bible is errant.

That doesn't mean Genesis chronologies shouldn't be simply added (the author doesn't do this btw), only that appealing to Barr or those like minded isn't proof or explicit.

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 04:13 PM
Ok, so you have a verse that states this and adds it all up?

(I only see a quote from AnswersInGenesis.)

I got the quote of Barr from AIG, so that why I put "SOURCE" there. That's my source. Do I have a verse that states what Barr stated? Well, there are many verses that would corroborate that, but I suspect you are talking about verses regarding Jesus and Peter.

Here's just a couple of many from Jesus --

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

Anyone who thinks that Jesus is not referring to the creation in Genesis 1:1 here is not to be taken seriously, for he who asserts that is willfully blind and has a severe spiritual and mental handicap.

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark." Matthew 24:37-38

And one from Peter --

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly, And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." 2 Peter 2:4-6

Of course, anyone can assert that this doesn't prove that Jesus and the Apostles didn't interpret Genesis literally, but as I stated above, whoever does assert such a thing is not to be taken seriously, for whoever asserts such a thing is not only willfully blind, but spiritually and mentally handicapped.

EDIT: I didn't "appeal to Barr" as you put it. If you read what I actually wrote, I said "I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment..." thus making the statement ITSELF the focus, not Barr himself, which is why I said it is immaterial who backs it or not, for appeals to authority are vacuous, unless that authority is the Bible itself. You should read more closely what is actually written.

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 04:26 PM
I would say that I find it difficult to believe that anyone could misunderstand the following verses, especially if one actually thinks them through, but I don't find it difficult at all, having seen how willfully blind people can be --

"But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the WHOLE EARTH: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark." Genesis 8:9

"These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the WHOLE EARTH overspread." Genesis 9:19

"And the WHOLE EARTH was of one language, and of one speech." Genesis 11:1

Anyone who thinks through the ramifications of these statements can come to only one conclusion concerning the range of the expression "WHOLE EARTH"

Joshua Luna
04-28-2010, 04:40 PM
Adelphos, you are avoiding my question: is there a verse that asserts that the data (Biblical facts) in Genesis 5 show be added (interpretation not explicit in the text).

As a side note, I actually am very conservative in my own beliefs and interpretations, and teach such. My reply was simply an appeal of methodology. You shouldn't assume that I didn't read your quote or pay mindful attention of it. Your quote was immaterial as it only repeated what you asserted as fact, it didn't prove it. So => back to my question asking for a Verse (not a quote of a liberal Biblical scholar). My petition for a Biblical reference interpreting the data (e.g. adding the chronological data, sealing the fact Genesis 5 should be added and eliminating all other possible methods of interpretation) was met with a number of quotes about Jesus and the Apostles believing Genesis.

Good, so do I. But none of those quotes said anything about the question--how should the data of Genesis 5 be understood.

Your post really is nothing more than:

You: Anyone with true, soul saving faith would add up the Genesis chronologies as that is what it clear says.

Me: Does Genesis directly say we should add up the numbers? Is there a verse directing us explicitly to this method?

You: Jesus says Genesis is inspired, so you are wrong.

Of course I never questioned the inspiration of Genesis, only the point being drawn from the text.

So while I agree that dates should be added (gasp... I don't find the other arguements satisfactory) I still am awaiting chapter:verse proof that this is the inspired way of dealing with the data (A was X years when he begat B, and lived Y years...). I think we can imply such while also acknowledging there are gaps in Biblical chronologies elsewhere as well as the numerical data needs to be dealt with carefully (I know AiG criticizes Theile, but his point on reignal years, coregencies, as well as the dispairity of how years were counted is pretty valid in terms of the ANE data--assuming the Biblical authors counted just like us Gregorian-Calendar loving Westerners is a big methological mistake IMO).

So is there a verse that adds up all the Chronologies in Genesis 5 or are we making a (solid) deduction that we should?

Biblical Fact versus Biblical Interpretation (which doesn't mean the interpretation is wrong).

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 04:54 PM
Joshua, try to show a little integrity. Here is your exact quote --

"Ok, so you have a verse that states this and adds it all up?"

This was IMMEDIATELY under my statment in which I said --

"That is CLEARLY what Genesis STATES. Whether one INTERPRETS it that way is another matter, but as I said, Jesus CLEARLY interpreted Genesis literally, and so did Peter, and so does the Holy Spirit."

You mentioned NOTHING WHATSOEVER about chronologies in your question. Nada.

As I said to SoxFan, so I say to you -- I can only deal with what you write. Thus far, you have demonstrated nothing but confusion in your reading of plain statements, and then mischaracterizing the whole issue, as you have just demonstrated.

If you wanted me to adress chronologies, you should have asked me to address chronologies instead of asking your question IMMEDIATELY IN RESPONSE to my statement about a LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS.

That was the context. Go back and read it again, only this time pay attention.

With regard to the chronologies, there is pretty good evidence to deduce the fact that they are sequential and exact, including both Matthew's and Luke's chronologies, but that is a whole other can of worms.

My statement was that Jesus and the Apostles interpreted Genesis literally.

I have yet to meet a person who thinks the chronologies are NOT exact and sequential who doesn't also believe that the days of Genesis 1 were NOT actual days, that Adam and Eve were NOT created at the very beginning of the world, and who does NOT believe that the flood of Noah's day was a literal global flood.

If there is a person who doesn't believe that the chronologies are sequential and exact, but who DOES believe Adam and Eve were created at the very beginning of the universe, and who DOES believe that the days of Genesis were literal 24-hour days, and who DOES believe that the flood was a literal global flood, that would be the first person I've ever encountered who believes both of those contradictory terms.

And in fact, the one proves the other, if one actually thinks it through.

ISalzman
04-28-2010, 11:02 PM
Well, that's sobering. Randall Price has a pretty good reputation, so I am definitely skeptical now.

Not saying this has bearing on the current subject, but, generally, I love Randall Price. He's usually right on.

Adelphos
04-28-2010, 11:26 PM
Not saying this has bearing on the current subject, but, generally, I love Randall Price. He's usually right on.

Yeah, I agree. That's why I would now be very surprised if this one turned out to be true.

What bothers me about these hoaxes is that it just gives more amunition to the critics who will assert that "those crazy fanatical Christians will do anything to try to prove their religion", and thus they group us all into the same category.

Not that their criticisms are valid, but it's just another layer of trivia that we have to wade through to get to the core.

ISalzman
04-29-2010, 09:23 AM
Yeah, I agree. That's why I would now be very surprised if this one turned out to be true.

What bothers me about these hoaxes is that it just gives more amunition to the critics who will assert that "those crazy fanatical Christians will do anything to try to prove their religion", and thus they group us all into the same category.

Not that their criticisms are valid, but it's just another layer of trivia that we have to wade through to get to the core.

I agree. Sad.

Joshua Luna
04-30-2010, 09:54 AM
Joshua, try to show a little integrity.

ad hominem.


Here is your exact quote

"Ok, so you have a verse that states this and adds it all up?"

This was IMMEDIATELY under my statment in which I said --

"That is CLEARLY what Genesis STATES. Whether one INTERPRETS it that way is another matter, but as I said, Jesus CLEARLY interpreted Genesis literally, and so did Peter, and so does the Holy Spirit."

So I asked for a verse that explicitly states your position on how to read the text and adds all the numbers for a total cummaltive data and your response was to ignore my specific inquiry and to YELL AT ME.


You mentioned NOTHING WHATSOEVER about chronologies in your question. Nada.

If you go back over the thread you will see this is exactly what I was responding to. I started off specifically engaging the topic of Chronology Methologies in post #21 (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?4510-Noah-s-Ark-Finally-Found&p=22517#post22517). I had specifically asked concerning the Chronologies:


In your opinion, is this something Genesis (or the Bible) states emphatically (chapter:verse for your perspective would be helpful) or an assertion of how the data must be interpreted based on the "child like faith" principle above?

You quoted in post #22 (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?4510-Noah-s-Ark-Finally-Found&p=22518#post22518)a quote from AiG:


2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

Concerning this point you continued:


This has been the historic position of orthodox Christianity, and it is CLEARLY what Genesis PLAINLY states.

Notice I said "states"

That is CLEARLY what Genesis STATES. Whether one INTERPRETS it that way is another matter, but as I said, Jesus CLEARLY interpreted Genesis literally, and so did Peter, and so does the Holy Spirit.

But note that I originally requested a chapter:verse that asked if the chronological data is explicitly added.

So I simply asked, again, in post #24 (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?4510-Noah-s-Ark-Finally-Found&p=22520#post22520):


Ok, so you have a verse that states this and adds it all up?

But of course I cannot read, lack integrity, express confusion, and am mischaracterizing and need to go back and "pay attention."

And I still don't get a verse answering my question :cool:

And not that it matters but I do take the Bible "literally" when the literary genre dictates (which I think Genesis 1-11 does). But as I mentioned earlier about chronologies the Semites didn't always hold to the same methods as westerners using the Gregorian calendar. A "literal" reading of the chronologies of the Israelite kings--from a Westerner's perspective--results in all sorts of systemic issues and contradictions in the numbers. When ANE concepts of coregency, ascension and non-ascension year recogning, and the differing times to begin the year (e.g. Spring and Fall) are taken into consideration of the literal reading the numbers can be added differently and works better as Theile and others have shown. It is my opinion that adding up the chronologies of all the kings, while "literal" to western eyes, is not literal at all as a) that isn't how the authors thoughts and counted and b) the Bible never explicitly does this. So what one is demanding to be literal is, in my opinion, the exact opposite.

So I don't dispute Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5; i.e. I take the Biblical text literally); but I don't think it is a case of requiring verbal assault and insult to ask if the Bible gives us a series of numbers w/o adding them, what presuppositions do we have in doing so? A more accessible example is when a family tree is given is to ask, "Is this a complete family tree?" Later books give a number of examples of expanding chronologies that show the care required in assuming such. It doesn't mean it is wrong, only there is a different between what the text explicitly states ("this is the complete family tree--saith the Bible") and what we interpret ("'A begot B begot C begot D'--for the following reasons I interpret this as the complete family tree...")

Adelphos
04-30-2010, 10:55 AM
And I still don't get a verse answering my question :cool:

Joshua, the actual verse that states the chronologies of Genesis are sequential and exact is in the same passage that states God is a Trinity, and is just as dogmatic. But of course, it takes eyes to see with and ears to hear with to comprehend either one.

Adelphos
05-01-2010, 01:09 PM
Looks like Randall Price clarified his earlier assessment --

http://www.worldofthebible.com/news.htm

AiG has a more in depth discussion of the reported find here --

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/01/news-to-note-05012010

Here is an excerpt from the AiG article --

"As Ham indicated, creationists at Answers in Genesis and presumably anywhere else would be happy to find the Ark, both for the testimony it would add to the historicity of Genesis and for the archaeological excitement of uncovering such an ancient piece of biblical history. But clearly God could reveal the Ark if He wanted to. This is not to say Ark-searching expeditions are anti-biblical, but rather that we need not find the Ark—or any archaeological artifacts—for us to trust God’s Word. Our hope is that Noah’s Ark Ministries International will not be secretive with the supposed Ark’s location and restrictive of access to the find, in which case we must continue to be highly skeptical and seriously consider the possibility that a fraud has been perpetrated on Noah’s Ark Ministries International by its Turkish partners."

jimofbentley
05-08-2010, 05:18 AM
For several days I have been mulling over whether or not I should respond to the previous conversation. The discussion has been heated, and yet there are certain real issues that need to be addressed.

At the heart of the discussion is the issue of the completeness, or otherwise, of the genealogies in both Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. If we assume that the genealogies are complete, and that we can therefore simply "add up" the dates to reach a time of creation and flood (something Jephthah appears to do in Judges 11:26 to arrive at the 300 years of Israelite occupation of Canaan), then we must also say that Luke was wrong in his genealogy of Jesus.

In Luke 3:36, Luke states that Shelah was the son of Cainan, who was the son of Arphaxad. Cainan is not found in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, although he is mentioned in the LXX of Genesis 11:13. Therefore, if we assume that the Hebrew text is complete in its relation of the genealogies, then we must also conclude that Luke was wrong (instead of simply following the Greek Bible that he had).

If, however, we state that Luke was correct, we are acknowledging that the LXX is correct in Genesis 11:13, and we are stating that the Hebrew text has omitted certain data from the genealogies, and is therefore "incomplete". If we state this, then we are acknowledging that we can not simply "add up" the years to come to a time of creation or flood, because certain data is "missing" from the genealogies.

Further, if we agree that some data has been lost from the Hebrew Text (although in this case it could be said to still exist in the LXX), we must also acknowledge the possibility that other portions of the genealogies may have also been omitted at various times and for various reasons. This uncertainty as to whether or not other data had been omitted or lost would also eliminate any possibility of certainty brought about by "adding up" the numbers to arrive at a time of creation or flood.

The issues involved in understanding ancient genealogies abound. I would like to suggest two excellent works for those interested in gaining more insight into this issue:


Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Second ed. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002.

Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale University, 1977.

Adelphos
05-08-2010, 05:42 PM
No, your assertion that Luke msut be wrong is wrong. It is easily possible to reconcile a total number of years in Genesis and Luke's genealogy. It is not necessary that a person in the genealogies be a directoffspring of the preceding individual.

Furthermore, the math is so simple a schoolboy can do it.

"And Adam lived an HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. Genesis 5:3

"And all the days that Adam lived were NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS: and he died." Genesis 5:5

"And all the days of Seth were NINE HUNDRED AND TWELVE YEARS: and he died." Genesis 5:8

And so on and so forth. SIMPLE MATH. And Luke's genealogy doesn't affect it in any way, shape or form.

Moreover, the LXX is notoriously inaccurate in these matters. In short, the Hebrew text is correct, the LXX is grossly in error.

And it is MERE CHILD'S PLAY to DEMONSTRATE that the LXX was reverse-engineered to agree with the New Testament in a number of passages, so that the LXX is virtually worthless as a benchmark in any OT passage.

But I'll leave it there, as it would be useless to proceed further.

Adelphos
05-09-2010, 09:31 PM
I don't care to debate the issue, but since the LXX was mentioned in this thread, and for some strange reason I have received a number of requests via email lately to produce an article on the LXX, I have finally done so. The article demonstrates the reverse engineering of the LXX.

Here is a quote from the first paragraph --

"Acording to the LXX, also known as the Septuagint, Methuselah survived the flood by 14 years, thus conflicting not only with the Hebrew account, but likewise diametrically contradicting the testimony of Jesus and Peter. This blunder by the LXX is easily DEMONSTRATED by SIMPLE ARITHMETIC, by merely adding up the genealogical years concerning Methuselah as construed by the LXX. And if that isn't enough in and of itself to convince a person that the LXX is a notoriously untrustworthy document, then neither would he be convinced if Methuselah himself rose from the dead and told him so."

As I said, I really don't care to debate this. You can find the entire article here --

http://lamblion.net/

bobvenem
05-10-2010, 08:51 AM
An alternative view, supporting the traditional Masoretic text (and, by extension, the KJV translation) as the basis for an Old Testament chronology, can by found in F.N. Jones' Chronology of the Old Testament. He answers every question plausibly.

Adelphos
05-10-2010, 09:27 AM
An alternative view, supporting the traditional Masoretic text (and, by extension, the KJV translation) as the basis for an Old Testament chronology, can by found in F.N. Jones' Chronology of the Old Testament. He answers every question plausibly.

Yes, that is a good work to have. I know Floyd. He's been a guest at my house for dinner. And in fact, Floyd gave me a copy of his Chronology Of The Old Testament. But even though we have the same last name, we're no relation. He also covers briefly what I have covered more extensively in my paper.

Adelphos
05-18-2010, 02:53 PM
A short, concise article on this thirty year anniversary of the Mount St. Helen's explosion, an event which gave us a micro-demonstration of the global flood of Noah's day, and which overturned virtually every known precept of conventional secular science --

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/18/thirtieth-anniversary-of-geologic-catastrophe