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.
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. I had specifically asked concerning the Chronologies:You mentioned NOTHING WHATSOEVER about chronologies in your question. Nada.
You quoted in post #22 a quote from AiG: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?
Concerning this point you continued: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
But note that I originally requested a chapter:verse that asked if the chronological data is explicitly added.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.
So I simply asked, again, in post #24:
But of course I cannot read, lack integrity, express confusion, and am mischaracterizing and need to go back and "pay attention."Ok, so you have a verse that states this and adds it all up?
And I still don't get a verse answering my question
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...")
Last edited by Adelphos; 04-30-2010 at 10:59 AM.
Looks like Randall Price clarified his earlier assessment --
AiG has a more in depth discussion of the reported find here --
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."
Last edited by Adelphos; 05-01-2010 at 01:12 PM.
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.
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.
Last edited by Adelphos; 05-08-2010 at 05:56 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 --
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.
Last edited by Adelphos; 05-10-2010 at 09:30 AM.
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 --
Last edited by Adelphos; 05-18-2010 at 03:01 PM.