Re: Today's blogs 2

Glenn.
Your answer confuses me even more. The named individuals without specific
ages do not enter into the computation, which was carefully done by
Ussher and others. There are other temporal data given. So the number of
names given are at best an indication of the minimum period, so there
cannot be less than the time for 10 generations from Noah to Abram. But
this gives no hint as to the total period.

"Son of man" seems to indicate nothing more than "human being." "Son of
David" applies to David's descendants. "Sons of Belial" has nothing to do
with ancestry.The Hebrew idiom has nothing to do with what you try to
claim, though Simon bar Jonah tells us the name of Peter's parent.

In the end, I still don't know if you have a criterion. Mine is
encapsulated in Galileo's principle that the Bible teaches us how to go
to heaven, not how the heavens go, extended slightly. I used to try to
make the first two chapters of Genesis agree, until I read them carefully
to determine exactly what was claimed. I had to conclude that they what
they claimed did not match. So their message can't be factual.
Dave

On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:50:27 -0400 <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
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Kya is superseded by 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 Fri May 27 19:17:43 2005