Dave wrote:
>I obviously need some clarification. What looks like a flat factual claim does not have to be true, but the early chapters
>of Genesis must the historical. However, the biblical chronology of ~6 Kya is superseded by >5 Mya. Are the
>antediluvian genealogies accurate to any degree? What about the genealogies from Noah to Abram?
The Genealogies are most assuredly very incomplete from internal evidence.. Assuming what YECs assume, that the Flood was in 3000 B.C. and David lived about 1000 B.C. THen here is what the genealogies say.
In Luke 3 there are 42 names between Jesus and David. This is an average
of 23 years per generation. If Abraham lived at 1800 B.C. there are only
13 names between David and Abe giving an average 61 year generation time.
Did the average man in 1600 B.C. have his first child at age 61?
There are only 10 names between Abraham and Noah. Since the YECs say that this
this represents 1200 years, that is an average generation time of 120
years. Few are willing to say that post flood Sumerians lived
lives of several hundred years and that their first born were born on
average when the old geezers were 120 years of age?
Assuming that people in the 1200 years between David and Abraham had the
same generation time as between David and Jesus, then the Luke Genealogy
represents 1/3 of the people who should be there. Between Abraham and
Noah, 1/5 of the necessary people. When you consider that people married
and had children younger these figures for the missing people should be
considered conservative.
Thus, if one simply applies logic to the internal evidence of the Scripture, one can't possibly believe in a 6kyr age for the earth. Jesus used the term 'son of man' which I believe is a reference to Adam. Even with the most conservative view, that is a genealogy which has a gap of 4000 years. It is a true genealogy but a very very incomplete one. Jesus also was a 'son of David,' a gap of 1000 years. Both you and the YECs seem to think that the Bible teaches a 6kyr age for the earth, they believe it, you don't believe it but view the Bible as the true revelation anyway. Strange to me that one can compartmentalize one's position in that manner. Like saying, I know it isn't true but I am going to believe it has relevance to me anyway.
Did Noah have
>iron tools available to build the Ark from his distant cousins? I understand the Ark landed in an area properly
>designated as the mountains of Ararat. Most important, what are the criteria for revealed truth that distinguish it from
>biblical statements that are mistaken?
Evidence, logic, the same things one would use in any other endeavor. I find this discussion odd. You question me on how to determine truth or falsity of the Biblical statements, but your position appears to me to be one of asserting that there really isn't anything historically or physically true in the account. The choice you offer me is one of doing what I am doing or believing something that is total nonsense because none of it is true, yet believing it anyway.
Received on Thu May 26 18:52:08 2005