kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
October 14th, 4004 BC at 9 AM.
The Creation of Earth
- Thread starter cupotea
- Start date
- Status
October 14th, 4004 BC at 9 AM.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Genesis 5/10 present real hermeneutical challenges, don't they? They are certainly written in a way that seems to imply chronology. And yet, there are demonstrable gaps in them, when one compares them with the gospels. Another challenge is that we have recorded histories that go back that far: Egypt, Sumer, etc. We might expect that going back to c. 2800 BC (Ussher's Flood date roughly), but not before.
I used to argue for an unbroken genealogy in Gen 5/10, but now I just don't know.
Hey Pat... Rev. Carroll is onto something.
There are many factors that affect interpretation of how God works in history. Some are: the use of numbers in Scripture can be quite different than our uses; motifs (trees; water; wine; clotheing; rocks, Etc.) This will accomplish a double-purpose: the items are literal and historical to the moment AND also symbolize a broader point in the whole story of Redemptive history. Literal AND symbolic. It may shock our arrogant sense of superior-knowledge, but the qualities of genre in the Bible are continuing to prove quite different than expected. Our problem is mostly cultural/historical ignorance - and then those pesky times when God simply insists that He is God and is silent on details of things we think we need to know. Clearly, THE one point not worth distraction is date-setting - especially, when it comes to using it as an apologetic (which is NO apologetic.)
Setting dates is impossible - because God has FIXED it that way. Why? He requires faith in the Gospel - validated by the works He has done, so the glory goes entirely to Him.
As an aside, I'm studying the qualities of OT prophecy language, now...so far, it is fascinating to learn that the content of them are mixed with many different "timelines." It's right and prudent to consider these differences and to have a more reserved, respectful stance towards the Text, which in my opinion, has many intricate facets.
I am humbled by God's works in history...and more arrested with the knowledge of His continuing orchestration of Redemptive history via the Gospel.
r.
[Edited on 7-22-2005 by Robin]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
It may be difficult to accept one assumption, but that does not make the other one automatically right, whether or not it is hard to accept. There could be many reasons for what appears as a broken genealogy, especially if the ages mentioned are correct. It is not impossible to have uncles hundreds of years younger than their nephews; a man could marry a woman who could be counted as two generations previous; or the father of one son could have more years separating him from him than a grandfather or greatgrandfather of his friend or neighbour. Things like this would really mess up the intention of a genealogy, and could easily lead to unaccustomed accountings. It is obvious that a lot was left out, such as why one generation was passed over in the redemptive genealogy, when another generation not necessarily as faithful was counted in. It isn't just a matter of accuracy, and I don't doubt that accuracy. We also have use common sense. You can't just shrug it off as if it is only symbolic; nor can you count the generations like we would in our day, with our much shorter life-spans.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Which histories you are refering to? As I understand it, we have about 3000 years of written history (which puts us to about 1000 B.C.) apart from the Bible. The rest is implied history (i.e. interpreted by presuppositions).
Matthew and Luke had points to make in their geneaolgies. They did not contain the specific numbers. But Genesis contains specific numbers of ages and lifespans. How can we not take them to be what the natural reading would say? What would justify denying the literal understanding of that account knowing that it is a narrative history, not prophecy or prose? To say those numbers aren't important, as some would seem to imply, seems to me to fly in the face of the great details God purposely left us.
[Edited on 7-21-2005 by puritansailor]
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Egyptian, primarily. But you may be right about the presuppositions.
And you don't think Moses did?
Do we know that?
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Same here.
I think some of the difficulty can be resolved by looking at the Hebrew, rather than looking merely at our English translations.
Of course, I am not a Hebrew scholar. But from what I have read about Genesis 5 and 10, the word "begat" in Hebrew does NOT mean the same thing that it does in English. In English, it is unmistakable. If I say, "John begat Vinny at age 65", then that means Vinny is John's child, and was born when John was 65 years old. But in Hebrew, the usage can be much looser.
It is my understanding that it would be just as accurate to translate the Hebrew word for "begat" as "became the ancestor of".
(The RSV gets a little closer to this translation by using the phrase "became the father of" in Genesis 5 . . . but of course you know that "father" is often used in Scripture as synonymous with "ancestor" [cf. Gal. 3:29].)
Now, if I say, "John became the ancestor of Vinny at age 65", that could still mean that Vinny is John's child, and was born when John was 65 years old. But that is not the only possible meaning. It could also mean that, at age 65, John fathered Vinny's great-great grandfather. We are told that John became Vinny's ancestor at the age of 65, but we have no idea whatsoever how many years there were in between the birth of Vinny's great-great grandfather, and the birth of Vinny himself.
In other words, a strict dateable chronology might perhaps be true in Genesis 5 and 10, but we can be in no way sure that is the case. There might be hundreds or thousands of years in between Jared and Enoch. We just don't know.
(However, it does seem clear that there were no interceding generations between Lamech and Noah, since we are specifically told that Lamech named Noah. But we are not told that information about those between Seth and Lamech.)
Horton is doing what we should do: not speak beyond Scripture. As to the literal day conclusion, a 6,000 year-old earth cannot be derived from it. The dots are not connected. Calculating the age of the earth is speculating.
APOLOGETICS ADVICE
What I've learned, so far...when in apologetical discussions, we should refrain from concluding the earth's age and steer towards the historical FACTS of God's creation power to the existence of Adam and Eve.
From here, I argue the fact of Adam and Eve from Christ -- since Jesus attested their reality. That way, the opponent is confronted with Christ's authority. (Btw, I have never seen the opposition prevail, here. It seems not many are ready to deal with Jesus' words. Must be something powerful in the name?)
Admitting the mistakes and knuckleheadedness of our forebears is also good to do. Move back to Christ's teaching a historical Adam; Noah; Jonah. The point is: not to defend incredible claims of a God that spoke the universe into existence; talking snakes; a global flood; a man living inside a fish - but to defend: Jesus Christ, who lived, died and was raised on the third day. Let the Gospel defend God's existence and power.
This is what Scripture does...and I think we're wise to do the same.
Robin
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Robin
Horton is doing what we should do: not speak beyond Scripture. As to the literal day conclusion, a 6,000 year-old earth cannot be derived from it. The dots are not connected. Calculating the age of the earth is speculating.
APOLOGETICS ADVICE
What I've learned, so far...when in apologetical discussions, we should refrain from concluding the earth's age and steer towards the historical FACTS of God's creation power to the existence of Adam and Eve.
From here, I argue the fact of Adam and Eve from Christ -- since Jesus attested their reality. That way, the opponent is confronted with Christ's authority. (Btw, I have never seen the opposition prevail, here. It seems not many are ready to deal with Jesus' words. Must be something powerful in the name?)
Admitting the mistakes and knuckleheadedness of our forebears is also good to do. Move back to Christ's teaching a historical Adam; Noah; Jonah. The point is: not to defend incredible claims of a God that spoke the universe into existence; talking snakes; a global flood; a man living inside a fish - but to defend: Jesus Christ, who lived, died and was raised on the third day. Let the Gospel defend God's existence and power.
This is what Scripture does...and I think we're wise to do the same.
Robin
Robin, I may be completely misunderstanding what you are saying, and if I am, I apologize in advance.
Are you saying that God speaking the universe into existence, the temptation of Eve by Satan, a global flood, and Jonah in the belly of the fish are not historical facts? Are you saying that we need to gloss over the "difficult" parts of the OT and focus only on Christ and the NT?
Again, if I am misunderstanding what you are saying, I apologize. I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth.
But, if that is what you are saying, how in the world do you expect an unbeliever to accept the historical fact that a virgin got pregnant by the Holy Spirit, gave birth to the Son of God incarnate, this boy became a man who was perfect, never sinning, that He was cruicfied, was dead for three days and then came back to life, after which His physical body ascended into heaven where He waits until the Last judgment? I mean, really, which is more "difficult" to believe? Personally, the fact that I believe in the above stated historical facts makes it easy for me to believe the "difficult" passages of the OT. A virgin giving birth. A man being dead for three days and then coming back to life. A body ascending in to heaven. And you think a talking snake is a stretch?
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
Robin while using that argument seems strong, all a skeptic has to do, is to deny the miracles of Jesus, hence stripping the Gospel of which the Creation is dependent upon, of its power.
I say preach the whole Bible. What is ridiculously laughable is a man descending from a monkey. I illucidate and mock this tenet so much with utmost sophistication that I drive my opponents into shame. I also show that it is the very evolutionary concept that gave rise to racism, by pointing out the fraudulent studies that show that Africans are by nature inferior to caucasians. If there is one thing a skeptic cannot stand is to be called a racist. All you have to do, is to show him being a racist is a natural extension of his "scientific thinking". Their natural selection is thrown to shreds when one shows discrimination against various groups. Simply say, well I guess African Americans are getting their just deserts from their inherent inferior status, hence those discriminating against them is doing no wrong etc.
After exposing that, I leave them in their shame.
[Edited on 7-22-2005 by Slippery]
I say preach the whole Bible. What is ridiculously laughable is a man descending from a monkey. I illucidate and mock this tenet so much with utmost sophistication that I drive my opponents into shame. I also show that it is the very evolutionary concept that gave rise to racism, by pointing out the fraudulent studies that show that Africans are by nature inferior to caucasians. If there is one thing a skeptic cannot stand is to be called a racist. All you have to do, is to show him being a racist is a natural extension of his "scientific thinking". Their natural selection is thrown to shreds when one shows discrimination against various groups. Simply say, well I guess African Americans are getting their just deserts from their inherent inferior status, hence those discriminating against them is doing no wrong etc.
After exposing that, I leave them in their shame.
[Edited on 7-22-2005 by Slippery]
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
you must be unaware of the Hamatic verses and their usage for justifying the black man's slavery in the American South. Neither racism or social darwinianism are logical outcomes of evolutionary thought and to posit this argument will not shame any competent debater. They are historical metaphysics drawn out of the science and don't condemn the science any more than Dabney's _Defense of Virginia_ invalidates Christianity.
in fact i will PM you two places for you to argue this, i'd love to see you try this old PRATT- "point refuted a thousand times" there.
after posting remorse:
i apologize for the strength of this, i spend hours each day discussing these things and forget where i am.
i love Dabney's work and think him a great Christian but i struggled long to understand and counter his arguments.
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap6.html
the abuse of something is no argument against its use.
Dabney doesn't so much abuse Scripture as allow his culture to blind him to Scriptures greater principles.
there are several excellent books on social darwinianism as a perversion of the science
i have only skimmed the End of Racism by D'Souza, Dinesh
but when i re-engage with the topic i will start there.
also on the list tbr
science and politics of racial research; tucker, williams
social darwinism; bannister, robert
....
[Edited on 7-22-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Well said!
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Keon is right about the lack of shame. People claim descendency from monkeys and are not the least ashamed of such utter stupidity. They are even proud. We also do such things in Christian circles. I've seen a whole denomination crumble under the self-centred suggestions of feminism. But they are not at all ashamed. If people are not ashamed of such things, there remains hardly anything left to say to them that would convince them of anything at all. If people are that gullible, you can't even be sure that they understood the gospel, even if they assent to it.
If we just think about it a minute: why would the Scripture state that a particular person became an "ancestor" at a particular age, if it did not intend to state that that person became the father of a son at that age? It boggles the mind. What becomes of the rule about plain meaning, and what about the Biblical mandate not to dispute about words? Are the doubts cast upon Scripture so compelling? Don't the doubts also cast doubts upon alternative meanings equally as much?
For example, one could call into question the meaning of the word "yom", but that is hardly a licence to go touting other theories based on other meanings of the word; especially it is no licence to think that other views of creation are on anywhere near the same level as the six-day view we find in Scripture; that would constitute a giant leap in logic.
I agree that there is much we don't understand. But not understanding is not proof. And it does not overthrow Scripture. It doesn't even overthrow myth.
If we just think about it a minute: why would the Scripture state that a particular person became an "ancestor" at a particular age, if it did not intend to state that that person became the father of a son at that age? It boggles the mind. What becomes of the rule about plain meaning, and what about the Biblical mandate not to dispute about words? Are the doubts cast upon Scripture so compelling? Don't the doubts also cast doubts upon alternative meanings equally as much?
For example, one could call into question the meaning of the word "yom", but that is hardly a licence to go touting other theories based on other meanings of the word; especially it is no licence to think that other views of creation are on anywhere near the same level as the six-day view we find in Scripture; that would constitute a giant leap in logic.
I agree that there is much we don't understand. But not understanding is not proof. And it does not overthrow Scripture. It doesn't even overthrow myth.
Originally posted by sastark
Originally posted by Robin
Horton is doing what we should do: not speak beyond Scripture. As to the literal day conclusion, a 6,000 year-old earth cannot be derived from it. The dots are not connected. Calculating the age of the earth is speculating.
APOLOGETICS ADVICE
What I've learned, so far...when in apologetical discussions, we should refrain from concluding the earth's age and steer towards the historical FACTS of God's creation power to the existence of Adam and Eve.
From here, I argue the fact of Adam and Eve from Christ -- since Jesus attested their reality. That way, the opponent is confronted with Christ's authority. (Btw, I have never seen the opposition prevail, here. It seems not many are ready to deal with Jesus' words. Must be something powerful in the name?)
Admitting the mistakes and knuckleheadedness of our forebears is also good to do. Move back to Christ's teaching a historical Adam; Noah; Jonah. The point is: not to defend incredible claims of a God that spoke the universe into existence; talking snakes; a global flood; a man living inside a fish - but to defend: Jesus Christ, who lived, died and was raised on the third day. Let the Gospel defend God's existence and power.
This is what Scripture does...and I think we're wise to do the same.
Robin
Robin, I may be completely misunderstanding what you are saying, and if I am, I apologize in advance.
Are you saying that God speaking the universe into existence, the temptation of Eve by Satan, a global flood, and Jonah in the belly of the fish are not historical facts? Are you saying that we need to gloss over the "difficult" parts of the OT and focus only on Christ and the NT?
Again, if I am misunderstanding what you are saying, I apologize. I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth.
But, if that is what you are saying, how in the world do you expect an unbeliever to accept the historical fact that a virgin got pregnant by the Holy Spirit, gave birth to the Son of God incarnate, this boy became a man who was perfect, never sinning, that He was crucified, was dead for three days and then came back to life, after which His physical body ascended into heaven where He waits until the Last judgment? I mean, really, which is more "difficult" to believe? Personally, the fact that I believe in the above stated historical facts makes it easy for me to believe the "difficult" passages of the OT. A virgin giving birth. A man being dead for three days and then coming back to life. A body ascending in to heaven. And you think a talking snake is a stretch?
Seth,
No - I'm not saying the OT is not historical! I'm saying, let Jesus defend Adam and Eve; Noah; Jonah. I am saying that too often the Christian accepts too much burden of proof from opponents -- and worse -- is unaware or doubtful of the P O W E R of Christ's words in apologetics. (Which is sin and dishonors the Lord.)
Apparently, Paul never sought to begin his argument from the pagan ideologies in Athens (Acts 17:16.) Athenians believed the world was mounted on the back of a giant tortoise; that the sun was Apollo driving his fiery chariot; and other unChristian scientific ideas. While Paul knew and quoted (v. 28) their scholars' writings of the day he boldly proclaimed God's creative authority and led right to the Gospel. As the Text explains, he didn't gain many converts; they called him a "babbler." But he was faithful to the call of every apologist for Christ. (I am also saying the content of Paul's speech in Acts 17:16-- is the way to go for the pagan. Our times being similar to theirs!)
What you might be missing Seth is, God creates faith in the hearts of dead sinners by hearing the Gospel. The moment human ears come into contact with the information about Christ (1 Cor. 15) it is that very thing that God has empowered to make the dead-soul live. The Gospel is "infectious" in the best sense. Exposure to it will bring about God's intended purpose. (The ultimate result, we may not be privileged to witness, btw.)
If God promises to create belief via a specific thing: the Gospel -- why do we delay in bringing the discussion to that asap -- do we doubt Him?
It's one thing to get hung-up on arguing about the reality of the global flood; it's another to explain the Gospel from the flood story (which can be done wonderfully.) I prefer the latter.
I hope everyone's clear as to what the Gospel is and is not. Mentioning the word: Gospel IS NOT The Gospel. However, explaining that a man (Jesus Christ) was dead and became alive again...that IS.
And Seth....whether you know it or not, you believe in (example)Noah's ark because you first believed The Dead-Guy came back to life.
I know...this doesn't have the WOW-factor that the search for Noah's ark may have. The Gospel is "foolish" to the Greek (those interested in knowledge) and a "stumbling block" to the Jew (those interested in religion.) These two categories summarize all the unbelief on the planet. God's means to "complete" the time of the Gentiles is The Gospel.
R.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't doubt Moses had a point to his record, but he is much more specific. He gives specific ages when fathers had children, and how long they lived afterward. What are we to do with such specific data? Even if the descendent named is not a son but a grandson or great grandson, the specific age of the "father" is still mentioned when that descendent was born. That pattern repeats over and over again. I don't think God gave us such specifics just to be ignored. Unless an alternative explaination exists for how to understand these specific ages, I have no reason to doubt a literal understanding of the ages recorded. Thus, a chronology can be constructed from the Genesis account. Does this mean we are trying to use the Bible for scientific conclusions? No. It's history. Real history. These are real people, who lived real lives in history. We may learn spiritual lessons from them, we may see the divine providence in preserving the line of Christ, but these are still real people. I see know reason to doubt the ages given.
Keon,
I didn't want to let this slip by....
If I understand correctly, it is thought if Jesus' miracles are denied, the Gospel is left powerless??
I wonder what scriptural proof is there for that assumption?
If you're meaning that denying the resurrection (as a miracle) -- well, I suppose the denial of it will keep them in their sin. But it is written....no matter who denies XYZ miracles of Christ...the information about Him: His life, death, resurrection is still MORE POWERFUL - and is the power to save them. God's purpose will not be thwarted.
Explaining the knowledge of Christ to hostile unbelievers may not make us look smart or powerful. But the Bible insists that it is precisely THIS foolishness (the knowledge of Christ) that IS the power of God. (1 Cor. 1:17-24)
Btw, I am not saying there must be a present-visible agreement with the opponent. I am saying we are to P R O C L A I M the Message, and leave it (if need be.) At the very least, make sure they understand what the proposition is: a real dead-guy comes back to life, in real history-violating the laws of physics; a complete reversal of death. This is a stripped-bare version - but the concept is what's important.
Human-agreement does not empower the Gospel! The Holy Spirit empowers it.
Whenever the Gospel is clearly explained/proclaimed, it accomplishes God's purpose (whether we see results or not.) Who knew that even Pharaoh's unbelief was ordained to reveal God's power and name? Bear in mind, the unbeliever is given the breath in which he curses God - by God Himself.
Are we willing to suffer and be reviled for believing such an idiotic story? Scripture says suffering in this way proves we are Christ's.
Selah
r.
[Edited on 7-23-2005 by Robin]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Robin:
I think what some of the objections are taking into account is that, if you cannot trust the Bible when it deals with verifiable things, like science and history, then there is no reason to trust the Bible in matters of faith. That would be how an unbeliever would look at it. Which is ridiculous, of course, because they are in no better shape in verifying their own theologies in the manner they make claim against Christianity. However, the way a Christian looks at it, because the Word is reliable in matters of faith, there is also an umimpeachable reliability in matters of science and history. Not because we take it in faith, but because we have a very real and knowledgable faith in a very real and knowable God. Nothing stands on a faith that springs out of ourselves, as it does for unbelievers.
So, although you are right about implanted faith, there is also an intrinsic validity to proving that things of real history and real science are tied to a real faith. We can, in sum, trust facts as facts because they too are revelations of God's divinity and power just as they are. What we are doing is showing the unbeliever that he cannnot make of them whatever he fancies in his imagination, but that a fact is a fact, not something that is true only when subjected to his interpretation. We are not reading everything out of a man-made faith, or grid of our own making. We can show that we are reading the facts just as they really are. For all truth ties together, or else we wouldn't know truth at all.
[Edited on 7-24-2005 by JohnV]
I think what some of the objections are taking into account is that, if you cannot trust the Bible when it deals with verifiable things, like science and history, then there is no reason to trust the Bible in matters of faith. That would be how an unbeliever would look at it. Which is ridiculous, of course, because they are in no better shape in verifying their own theologies in the manner they make claim against Christianity. However, the way a Christian looks at it, because the Word is reliable in matters of faith, there is also an umimpeachable reliability in matters of science and history. Not because we take it in faith, but because we have a very real and knowledgable faith in a very real and knowable God. Nothing stands on a faith that springs out of ourselves, as it does for unbelievers.
So, although you are right about implanted faith, there is also an intrinsic validity to proving that things of real history and real science are tied to a real faith. We can, in sum, trust facts as facts because they too are revelations of God's divinity and power just as they are. What we are doing is showing the unbeliever that he cannnot make of them whatever he fancies in his imagination, but that a fact is a fact, not something that is true only when subjected to his interpretation. We are not reading everything out of a man-made faith, or grid of our own making. We can show that we are reading the facts just as they really are. For all truth ties together, or else we wouldn't know truth at all.
[Edited on 7-24-2005 by JohnV]
Well said, John!
All I was trying to emphasize was the Gospel is not a part of General Revelation (nature.) It falls in the Special Revelation (Christ in history relayed in Scripture) camp. There is no way to prove the Gospel from General Revelation; it inhabits the presinct of Special Revelation, only. (Important distinctions to understand.)
r.
All I was trying to emphasize was the Gospel is not a part of General Revelation (nature.) It falls in the Special Revelation (Christ in history relayed in Scripture) camp. There is no way to prove the Gospel from General Revelation; it inhabits the presinct of Special Revelation, only. (Important distinctions to understand.)
r.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Funny thing, though, once you know that the world was created by God through faith, all of general revelation becomes like a majestic exclamation point for special revelation, like they never were apart from each other. Makes you wonder how you never saw it before.
Ain't that the truth?!!! Many times elation overwhelms me in the garden upon seeing a bumble-bee or new plant growth. (It doesn't take much...) It's like having "God-glasses" on: a sense of admiration and wonder for the beloved Creator's skill and artistry, comes to the fore of my heart. Meanwhile, my pagan-friend (scientist) who regularly studies nature and is impressed by it, cannot understand my reactions. He is simply indifferent to an awareness of Who is (or might be) responsible - though the appreciation and interest is there.
r.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not suggesting that the genealogies are not historical. I AM suggesting, however, that they may be selective. I will agree with you that the language, when read plainly, does seem to present chronology in an unbroken fashion. Still, evolutionary gobleddygook aside, we have too much recorded human history to squeeze into 6008 years, 7 months, 25 days (as of today). There must be another answer.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Too much recorded history? I guess I'm not understanding which history you are refering to. We have the Bible and then some ancient fragments before about 1000 BC or so, unless you wish to include mythologies. That leaves hundreds of years, at least, between then and the Flood. Alot can happen in a few hundred years, especially with the corruptions of their histories into mythologies, and the migrations of men over vast amounts of land, before they start recording things down. Apart from the Bible there is no recorded history that goes back that far, at least none to my knowledge. The rest of ancient history is speculative on the part of the secular historian.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
I cannot believe you mean 1000 BC. Hammurabi is predates Moses by 400 years (c. 1800 BC) and Sargon 1 predates Moses by a millennium (c. 2400 BC), which is BEFORE Ussher's Flood date. The gospel genealogies add names that Moses does not, which is a real problem for us viewing the Genesis genealogies as chronology as we would normally view it.
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
i would add to that list 4800 year old Chinese characters
http://www.anton-heyboer.org/i_ching/websites/oldestchar/nat_geographic.htm
Authorised
Puritan Board Freshman
How does one who believes in a 6000 year-old earth reconcile that belief with mainstream science? Carbon dating has settled this issue.
New wine skin
Puritan Board Freshman
Aaron, your question will start a new thread. Please note many discussions already exist on this board that would be a response to your question.
New wine skin
Puritan Board Freshman
You quote this as if its fact.... it is speculation and should be represented as such.
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
Time...
One day and a thousand years are the same to God...
Wake up and smell the coffee.
One day and a thousand years are the same to God...
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Does Hammurabi include history? I thought it was only laws. If it's only laws then fixing a date, to me, seems rather speculative. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
Isn't Sargon a mythology? Correct me if I am wrong.
And again, regarding Luke and Matthew, I admitted the possibility that in Genesis, the descendent born could have been a grandson or great grandson, but the age of that father was still correct when the descendant was born. So it's entirely possible for Luke/Matt to know other generational names, and include them, especially since they are not concerned with numbers like Genesis is. Plus, Luke's genealogy of the genesis generations is indentical to Genesis except for Cainan (Luke 3:36), which is a few generations after the flood (Luke appears to follow the septuagint here). Matthew deliberately omits anything before Abraham and formulates his genealogy to point to David, thus his account doesn't even deal with the genesis narratives prior to Abraham. The only other extensive geneaology is in 1 Chron. which is identical to Genesis. Genesis stops keeping track of specific ages with Jacob. Luke then only differs from Genesis by one name. How some could blow this out of proportion by saying their are huge ommisions in Genesis seems to me not to deal with the facts. I admit it does get fuzzy between the time in Egypt and the time of David, and also between the time of the Exile and Joseph. But this doesn't affect the Genesis chronology, with the exception of trying to explain Cainan (Lk. 3:36)
Okay, Six one thousand year days, and one 24hr sabbath.
Is that better?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
