RE: [asa] New Evidence for Two Human Origins

Hi Dave, you wrote:

>>Kitchen's suggestion (On the Reliability of the Old Testament) that

genealogical data was multiplied by later scribes who knew that

creation must have been a really long time ago and the available

genealogical records sounded too short.<<

And don't forget the missing generations that got mysteriously deleted.
Reputedly, scribes took great care in transcribing what they felt were
the words of their venerated prophets. Deliberate manipulating seems
out of character. Plus, it would have to have been done early not by
"later scribes" to be found in all surviving manuscripts.

Looking at archaeological data there is a correlation there also with
the long-lived patriarchs. There is no trace of civilization in the
Tigris-Euphrates basin prior to 4800 BC. That's the date archaeologists
tacked on to the bottom layer at Eridu, the first city. The flood
layers in the central cities were dated to 2900 BC. That's 1900 years
covered by ten named generations in Genesis. Do the math.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 12:01 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] New Evidence for Two Human Origins

If you assume that a particular combination of genes gives an

extremely long lifespan, a gradual influx of mutations and other

alleles from breeding with other populations could produce any number

of patterns of decrease in lifespan. The fact that many genes

influence lifespan (as does diet and other factors) doesn't prove that

a particular combination of genes would allow 969, despite wild claims

of some current workers on aging.

Working out exactly what the ages in the genealogies mean is

problematic, however. Additional items include

Kitchen's suggestion (On the Reliability of the Old Testament) that

genealogical data was multplied by later scribes who knew that

creation must have been a really long time ago and the available

genealogical records sounded too short

Terah seems to be 130 at Abraham's birth (Gen. 11:32, 12:1,

12:4-assumes that Terah died in Haran before Abram left Haran; assumes

that 11:26 gives Terah's age at birth of first son-not Abe), yet

Abraham claims to be too old at 100 (but not at 86).

Not remembering the statistical details of Hill's calculations, I

would note a caveat that a strictly uniform distribution of final

digits in ages is only expected for a very large sample; however, the

deviation in the genealogies from a strictly uniform distribution is

so large as to also be rather unlikely. In other words, the null

model should be checked.

The three copies of the tallies of those returning to Jerusalem in

Ezra, Nehemiah, and I Ezdras suggest that scribes were pretty good at

copying lists of names but had real trouble with numbers.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.