Re: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

I phrased that wrongly. As you say it's hard to accept a generation time of
120 years, so this is where the gaps could occur. So instead of saying:

When Adam was 130 years old he became the ancestor of Seth
> When Seth had lived 105 years he became the ancestor of Enosh
>

I should have said

130 years after Adam was born, one of his descendents had a son called Seth
etc.

The point is the same - you simply can't stretch these figures out to
millions of years as you appear to want to without some hideous distortion
of the text.

And in any case, the following figures indicate that they are a literal line
of descent:

Methuselah was 187 when he became father of Lamech and lived till he was 969
Lamech was 182 when he became father of Noah
Noah was 600 when the flood came.

187+182+600 = 969 hence implying that Methuselah died in the year of the
flood

Bit of a coincidence, if these figures are supposed to be separated by long
indeterminate gaps, don't you think?

And I'd appreciate it if you don't imply that I WANT the Bible to be
"false". I think that's pretty insulting, to be honest with you.
"Non-historical" is not the same as "false". Equating non-historicity with
falsehood is what Young Earth Creationists do, which is why they compress
the timescale. You're trying to stretch it out, but I just don't see how
you can given the figures, without some very peculiar interpretation of the
text.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 27 04:37:43 2006