Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Thanks for stepping in ... and trying to explain the OE position with some clarity!
Sadly ... I still think that we're playing a little bit of Apples & Oranges?

Chronology (from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chronos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia)
is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time, such as the use of a timeline.
It is also "the determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events".

Stu ... I'm NOT quite as dogmatic about the EXACT age of the Young Earth as you might think!
My belief in a Young Earth (and a Young Universe for that matter)... has NOTHING to do
with an Evolutionary fear of deep-time or multi-digit numbers!
I simply can't help but to trust that God is 2nd-to-none to anyone or anything at any time
on any topic ... PERIOD !!!
This would make Him the wisest, the most honest, & the best communicator of ALL time!
(Did I lose anybody so far?)
I honestly don't care "Who" God chose to record His Inspired Word ... because I trust
that God (through His foreknowledge) knew that the ones that He chose ... were capable
of communicating His message EXACTLY as He would want it to be recorded !!!
(Still with me?)
Therefore ... in Genesis chapters 5,7,9,11,12,21,25,35,41,45,47,& 50 ... when God had
Moses (or whoever?)... record that Adam was 130 year old when Seth was born ... and
that Seth was 105 when Enos was born ... and Enos was 90 when Cainan was born and so on!
I can see of NO WAY that adding these numbers up can be seen as Un-Scientific, Un-Biblical,
or Illogical ... in ANY rational way ???????
This can CLEARLY be done from Adam to Joseph !!!
There may be (and likely are) others that are not listed ... but were born between
these patriarchs that are listed!
BUT ... I honestly do NOT understand how the recorded ages change (even a fortnight)
because of the irrelevant people that "GOD" chose NOT to record ???
If these numbers are wrong? ... then God is either a liar or a fool!
It is THIS ... and THIS alone that motivates me to believe in the Young Earth stance!
Now! ... with that said! ... getting from Joseph to Jesus does get a little dicier!
This is why many Youth Earth Creationists will tell you that they believe that the
Earth/Universe is 6,000 to 10,000 years old!
I've even seen some that extend this estimate to 12,000 ... and even 15,000 years of age!
It really doesn't matter to most of us ... as long as the integrity of God's Word is NOT tarnished !!!

If You & Lee both don't believe in a Global Flood (as described in Scripture)... then
the period of time between Adam to Jesus is really just a moot point!
The reason that Dr. Ross chooses to deny a Global Flood is purely for secular harmony!
I actually like Hugh ... and believe that his motivation is sincere ... but misguided!
I admire the fact that he has went to great lengths to remain consistent in his stance!
The thing that bothers me is ...
When You or Lee try to defend your positions ... you look to Hugh ... or in Lee's case
to secular Science!
But ... when Lucien & I defend our stance ... we both RUN to God's Word !!!
I'm sorry ... if that seems like a cheap-shot? ... But whether you guys are willing to
admit that openly or not? ... does not change the fact that it is true!
You have to know that I Love both of you guys (my Brothers in Christ!)... or why else
would I spend so much time selling the Security and Sanctity of God's Word to you?


Bret* 2010

Gentlemen: I've already stated my position in my Nov 29 post (Bret -- perhaps you missed it). I have yet to see anything in the posts since (including Bret's current chart) that would change my opinion. Once again: There are gaps in the genealogies in the Bible. The only question is how many and how long they are.

It's not whether or not the Hebrew "allows" gaps (Lucien's argument). That begs the question entirely. The Scripture itself clearly indicates there are gaps and plenty of room for interpretation. The angel of the Lord calls Joseph the "son of David" (Matthew 1:20). I don't think he was mistaken by 1000 years (more than 30 generations). There are at least 10 generations missing in 1 Chronicles 26:24 when Shebuel is called the "son of Gershom." [I noticed the NIV says "descendant of Gershom," but the Hebrew is clearly "ben" (son of) and is properly translated that way in the NASB]. It doesn't take too many gaps of "1000 years" or "10 generations" to account for tens of thousands of years. On the other hand, it is also an abuse of the text to read millions of years into those gaps.

So what's the purpose of the genealogies? One must discern God and the human author's intent. Mostly it seems to indicate a legitimacy of office, e.g., Jesus' lineage as Lucien indicated. But they are also used to legitimatize other lineages such as the office of the Levites (1 Chron 26); also the legitimacy of Ezra (interestingly, 6 generations are left out of Ezra 7:2 when compared to 1 Chronicles 6:6-14).

To me, it is evident that the purpose of the genealogies is not to establish a mathematical formula (let alone certainty thereof) for calculating chronology. Although we may find some calculation interesting, I think it is an abuse of the text (unless clearly indicated) to establish a "closed chronology" (for Lucien -- "a continuous line," and for Bret "X= A+B+C +....+H...+S +...."). Worst of all, I think it highly inappropriate to use "closed chronology" as an argument for inerrancy.

Now there are places where Scripture does use a "closed chronology," but it is evident from the text, e.g. "Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years" (Ex 12:40); and "it came about in the 480th year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the 4th year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the 2nd month that he began to build the house of the LORD" (1 Kings 6:1-2). Conflicting interpretations here would be highly problematic.

I also rail against the abuse of science and logic by some YEers who claim that dating methods aren't reliable enough to date human archaeological evidences (jewelry, language, clothing, tools, art) and mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA evidence back for at least 25,000 years. Or to deny that living trees can't be dated back 5000 to 10,000 years. Or that the ice age and core sample evidence is unreliable.

As I said on Nov 29, "we still have to reconcile a science-derived 50,000 years to the Biblical account which YEers put at 6,000 years ago." I'm not sure there is yet a solution, but it seems that both our understanding of the biblical account, and that of science are converging. The best attempt I've seen at this reconciliation is Hugh Ross' explanation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afIneEYIO8A&list=ULC3zu9xeZJ4s&playnext=3. He says that allowing for legitimate gaps in the genealogies, plus an assumption that the biblical life spans are proportional to the passage of time -- then the biblical as well as archeological dates point to Adam at 50,000BC, Noah at 30,000BC and at Abraham 2000BC +- error bars." I am perfectly comfortable with that as my current opinion.

It would "trash the Bible" (to use Bret's terminology) if legitimate "closed chronology" (Ex 12:40, 1 Kings 6:1-2; Luke 2:7) was shown to be inaccurate. But to use genealogies to derive arbitrary conclusions that weren't necessarily intended trashes the logic of the interpreter, not the Scripture.

Who believes this?
If not ... WHY ???



Bret* 2010

For clarification.

Please enjoy this Apple ... while I describe an Orange in great detail ... !!!
Lee ... I believe that you're way too smart to not realize that you and Lucien are
doing the old Apples & Oranges shtick?
You are BOTH right ... to some extent!
The Genealogies are likely incomplete ... as to listing EVER descendant in the Family-tree!
But ... this has NO affect on the Chronology of the names listed!
One Verse may list (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,...)
while another list (A,C,E,G,...) ... but they BOTH possess the SAME Chronology!
If one were to list (A,B,D,C,E,F,G, ...) ... then we've got an ERROR ... and the Bible is trash!
Neither of you believe the Bible possesses any such errors! (Which is CORRECT!)
So ... if God's Word says (anywhere) that "A" was 35 years old when "C" was born ...
then "B" must have been born sometime during those 35 years!
(i.e. "A" was 18 when "B" was born ... and "B" was 17 when "C" was born!)
This isn't "rocket-science" gentlemen!
Either you believe in this LOGICAL conclusion ... or you believe that the Bible is TRASH !!!
I understand that Lee has decided to take the 5th on this issue ... so ...
I'm hoping (yes! ... even praying) that Stu has enough integrity to address this
crucial (Divine vs. Trash) conundrum ... that Lee has abandoned ???


Bret* 2010

And i wish you would answer my question that I have asked multiple times (in fairness to you, Stu has remained utterly quiet, not sure if he has been travelling or any other reason):
Are the numbers WRONG (I later added whether maybe the names were wrong as you alluded to).

I think you wish to change subjects because deep down I suspect that you understand the Biblical case is better than the assumption of there being missing generations.

Saying that "begetteth" can skip generations is a moot point as I have, at least one two occasions, already explained that I believe the Hebrew word indeed can do so. We agree on this point, so stop implying I am not agreeing with you.

Also, I have indicated that the Cainan in Luke is a copyist error (not found in the original). Since I think Cainan was (by accident, on a rare copyist error) added in, there is little point in trying to argue with me about it.

I often get the impression that when you really don't have a good Biblical answer, you throw a tantrum, and say I am behaving in a non-Christ-like fashion, solely in order to move on (and not have to admit defeat against the powerful texts of Scripture). Well boohoo, why don't you just completely eradicate my argument from Scripture, instead of assuming that extra-Biblical sources or Bible verses taken out of context are a good enough case. That may work on people who are quite happy in accepting other sources than the Bible to take authority over the Holy Scriptures, but it on't with any Biblical creationist.

So to summarise (and I compliment you on being succinct, instead of your usual extremely lengthy posts):
Paragraph 1) Moaning and ridiculing.
Paragraph 2, 3 & 4) argument about a Cainan I already said I do not accept.
Paragraph 5) Argument about a Hebrew word I have said twice already we agree on.

So who is going off topic and wasting our time?

One last comment:
"No one can pin down the Chronology! "
Hmmm, but according to you we KNOW that the genealogies mentioned MUST be incomplete because Lee's opinion is more authoritative than Scripture?
How contradicting of you!!!
At least I use the names listed to build a case, you imagine there must be scores of people more (several factors in fact) in order it fits with your long time view.
ANY court case would rule the facts in the writing (the Holy Scriptures even!) over the assumptions of brother Lee. Face the facts Lee, you would lose the case, and you know it! You cannot win a case on the silence of something.
Jessica Alba has not said she will not marry me, so my assumption is she will marry me?
GET REAL!!!

I wish you would just politely answer my questions instead of going off topic and making all kinds of of non-Christian-like baseless insinuations. Like we haven't read the gospels and aren't familiar with them.  Or that Stu and I want the lists to be complete, how ridiculous.  You waste our time with this. I am not going to bother with a response to them.    

My question back at you then is how long after having Cainan did the two of them beget Salah? Was it 35 years as stated in Genesis. Or did Arphaxed have Cainan at 35 years and Cainan have Salah some unknown number of years later. Or did Arphaxed have Cainan some unknown number of years after he was born and Cainan had Salah 35 years after Cainan was born? There are likely more cases like this in these verses due to the tyical missing descendents in virtually every list.  The Bible is ripe with cases of missing names in the lists as a rule rather than the exception  This is why we can't simply add up the numbers and for no other reason. We know from the Bible that gaps in the lineage exist!  No one can pin down the Chronology!  The YLT version makes it most clear. 

Luke 3:36 the 'son' of Salah, the 'son' of Cainan, the 'son' of Arphaxad, the 'son' of Shem, the 'son' of Noah, the 'son' of Lamech,

Genesis 11:12 And Arphaxad hath lived five and thirty years, and begetteth Salah. 13 And Arphaxad liveth after his begetting Salah four hundred and three years, and begetteth sons and daughters.

Both the word 'son' and 'begetteth' from the above verses imply an unknown series of intermediary descendents.  Go ahead and believe that the list is compete and the chronology is accurate if you find comfort in this fiction, but for me I plan to move on to other topics. This one is ridiculous to pursue further and I am sure boring to any other readers occassionally checking in.  Maybe someone else will want to argue endlessly with you on this. 
Lee

"
As it was in the beginning (One Love!);
So shall it be in the end (One Heart!)
"

Well, Stu, I was wrong.  I hate to admit it but somehow I just plain missed it. You remember when I told you that some smart young genius would eventually discover how the mind worked and the physics behind it? Well it turned out to be a 66 year old physicist in 2000.  It's amazing I know that I missed such a major achievement but it happened. In my defense though, it was subtle, no media blitz, no announcement, quiet, like the author didn't exist. Tell you why soon. 

I was putzing around the bookstore about three weeks ago and a book called the Physics of Consciousness caught my eye, practically jumped off the shelf into my hands. I thought to myself, they have got to be joking!  Anyway, I bought it, read it and although I differ significantly with his views about the need for an observer to materialize reality, I actually believe the author has a fairly decent understanding of the operation of the mind and how the brain supports it. I know you have a problem with this concept, but please let me explain further because this is not as bad as I believe you're imagining.   You remember that non-physical quantum coherent non-local energy field that I was exploring with you that I called information and you thought was our spirit. Well, it's both according to the author. The author believes the same as you do that this quantum coherent field (psi) is best described as spirit instead of anything material.   A spiritual non-local, non-spatial information matrix in Hilbert space integrated into Shrodinger's quantum field psi that integrates all operations of our brain and interfaces with our body.  

An life long physicist, a brother Christian, figured it out and wrote it all down in a book. If anyone ever deserved the Nobel Prize it is Evan Harris Walker. He has figured out an age old enigma and even wrote out the equations for it. Pretty amazing right!

You may not agree with us on this concept, yet, but I can guarantee you that you will enjoy the book and that Walker has moved the entire field of study of consciousness forward by a giant leap.  At least he has grasped and clearly explained some very important parts of mind operation based on measured data, real chemistry, and known physical laws. He has also bridged a giant chasm in understanding: how consciousness can be achieved. 

Simply described, the concept is this:  electrons in RNA molecules distributed throughout the brain form the quantum coherent field tunneling medium throughout the synapses of the brain. This allows a psi controlled electron to tunnel or hop to any other synapse in the brain.  Once this tunneling occurs the psi function is in a specific real state.  Whenever a sufficient number of these electrons accummulate in an activated synapse it fires and a real action is taken. This occurs a vast number of times each second across all the synapses while we are conscious.  Thought (part of our individual psi function) controls a portion of this electron tunneling activity through our will.  Sensory information from our nervous system is integrated by the psi function with our thoughts through this coherent quantum electron field.  His calculations from quantum theory match extremely well with measured values from tests on information handling capacities, consciousness thresholds, and response times. It really looks like to me that he has nailed down the real mechanisms.          

Yet, there was no major celebration or media hype about it. I suspect it was because the secular community might have been furious about it. You see in this same book, Walker, just before he passed on to the other side in 2006, made a very convincing case for Christianity, a non-material universe, and for God speaking all into existence in the beginning during the Big Bang. All three are foundational in our secular driven world.  He had the audacity to suggest that we as well as God are in control of all matter and that we are timeless and spaceless entities that occupy information space (Hilbert Space).  This would be the last thing that the enemy would want the public to know about or believe. 

Hopefully, you will want to read this extraordinary book. I am sure you will love the final chapter as it adds greatly to the scientific support for belief in God in a totally new area, that of mind over matter.  It gives a totally different perspective on Creation than Hawking's last book which was a waste of my time to read. Although many will have some difficulty in understanding some parts, it is definitely worth the effort to learn how the brain interacts with the quantum mechanical psi function.  I believe it should be a must read for Christians such as yourself that enjoy physics and God's Word.  By the way I think I bought the last copy in the book store, so you may have to order your copy if you want to read it.

Lee 

First of all, interesting how you did not mention the feeding of the 4000 and 5000, which were the actual ones I was accusing you of, since you have already said in previous posts that you thought it was not so much a miracle but more a teaching of sharing food, etc.

Secondly, I am not particularly interested in Green. You can bring him up all you like, but unlike you, I am not committed to defend his point, I'd rather argue about the Biblical text.

Next, a question to answer your question (a strategy that Jesus used often):
Have you read the four Gospels?
If so, what did the sign over Jesus' head say as He hung on the cross?
Well...
Oh wait, it seems that different Gospels have different things.

Well, let me explain it to you:
If you take the various sayings from the various Gospels, you can from a phrase from those parts, and none of the Gospel writers was wrong!
Only, they did not all record the full statement. (they recorder a part of the full statement)
Now what the sign did not state was how high my credit card bill was this months, or who Bret's father is, or where you got your last coffee (if you drink coffee) or what Stu did on Saturday.
Now what Green has shown is nothing more than that a number of genealogies have names missing. Big Deal! How does he know? Well, because there are other lists about the same families/tribes/peoples groups that are more complete (even listed in the Bible!).
What you and Green are saying, and this is pure speculation, and even adding to the Bible since there is NO Biblical basis for it, is that there should be a MORE complete list, which is not printed in the Bible. Your imagination or other extra-Biblical sources should immediately raise question-marks. Why? Well, they are not inspired, but that is not the crux of the matter here.

To avoid the Stu/Lee argument "yes, there must be more names, because our view requires them" vs the Bret/Lucien argument "the Bible does not mention these missing links, and hey, it actually fits with our worldview" (not really a wonder since I am begging the question) I asked the simple question (not for the first time):
Are the numbers wrong?

You have taken me completely by surprise, by (and please correct me if I misunderstood) replying that the numbers are right, but the names are wrong.
So am I to understand that (for example) Adam did not begat Seth when he was 130, but someone else did?
Am I to understand that (for example) Noah did not begat Shem when he was 500, but someone else did?

The argument is NOT (Lee, pay attention here) that there are genealogies in the Bible with some names missing. There is no argument there, so no point debating it endlessly.
The argument is NOT if BEGAT can skip (a) generation(s). I concede the Hebrew allows for that. So no point bringing it up time and time again.
The argument is crystal clear:
The Bible tells us how old a patriarch was when a next patriarch was born (leaving aside for now whether it was a son, grandson, great grandson, or other). Adding these numbers leads to a very simple sum and gives you Adam at about 4000 BC (roughly).
And again, form reading your last post, you claim the numbers are right, but the names are wrong...

Stu, you are awfully quiet. Is it silence before the storm or have Lee and I bored you to death? The forum is still called "Earthage" so we are on topic...


Lucien

There are numerous instances that Biblical scholars like Green have pointed out that clearly show that the Bible is inconsistant in the descendent listing if they are expected to be comprehensive or complete. In some cases many generations are missing. You can try to get the world to believe that the geneology is complete but the reading of other Biblical passages show a different fact and that some or many members were often left out. It is not Green, Stu, or myself saying this, it is a clear reading of the Bible that makes this obvious.  The classic example is: Mathew 1:1
Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

If you take this literally and simply, we are forced to believe that there are two generations between Abraham and Jesus. This is contrary to other passages as well. We cannot rely on a simple reading of the Bible to determine rigorous descendency. There are too many inconsistencies to support this simple reading approach. If you choose to disregard the inconsistencies and try  to claim a straightforward timeline from Noah to Abraham, you are forced to treat the inconsistencies as recording errors which plays into the hands of the enemy that promotes the flawed Bible view. Lucien, you called it a 'copying error' which feeds this flawed image of the Bible. Stu and I are claiming, like many Biblical scholars that have studied descendencies intensively, that these descendencies are not and were never intended to be complete by the authors but mention selected members only of the ancestory of the Hebrews through Jesus. These listings of names were not intended to be used for chronology as Green also states.  Accurate lineage is the exception, and gaps are the rule.  

The case in point that you mention regarding Noah to Abraham from my perspective has the primary intent of showing a descreasing longevity of ancestors over time to substantiate God's intention of reduced lifespans for mankind. One cannot take this as complete for reasons I have already stated and documented, Green lists many more than I have cited. 

I do not doubt that a parent was the age stated at the time of the offspring's birth, the parent however might have been different than the one previously mentioned due to gaps in the documented listing. He may have been the same as the one stated or a distant ancestor. With the many ancestry gaps documented in the Bible this could have taken many millenia before Abraham was born. Adhering to this gaps approach we avoid having to claim the alternative ancestory listed by Luke as flawed.

You seem to be more motivated to keep the timeline short to defend your YE views than examining carefully the conflicting lineage accounts presented by various experts incuding Green.  If you read the passages there are differences in the names of the decendents. If one does not attribute these differences to incomplete lists by both the different authors or allowing for some individuals having two different names then one has no recourse but to accepting these inconsistencies as am error. Surely you don't want to support that option.  The latter has a damaging effect to  our Christian credibility and of the Bible. 

Question: How do you explain the many inconsistant passages if there are not gaps. Do you claim they are errors and support those who claim the Bible is flawed? If you don't how do you exlain each of them away? It only takes one inconsistency to claim the Bible has an error and there are many cases of inconsistent descendent lists.  You might want to address Green's examples for a start.  

By the way, I do believe that the early ancestors had very long lives, Jesus turned water to wine, and was born of a virgin. You can stop with the accusations! Try to focus on adressing the chronology inconsistencies if you can. 

  Lee

Answers In Genesis is building a 1:1 scale of Noah's Ark in Grant County, KY.
Ark Encounter it will be called.
ArkEncounter.com

The governor was asked if he believed in creationism. He answered in saying he and his wife are indeed Christians, but were not elected to discuss their faith, but to create (pun intended?) jobs.
Good answer in my opinion.
All in all i thought there were good questions asked, and good answers given. Some answers that could have been...
no, there won't be any live dinosaurs on the Ark [unless you count birds as dinosaurs, lol]
Nascar racing is indeed not based on the Bible
Muslims won't be able to build a profitable theme-park in KY.

Anyway, fortunately these people are not as cheeky as I am, but i thought the Q&A time was well-handled.

Hi Lee

just to note that Green does not seem to have a problem with longevity or having kids at older age, but I believe you do?
He also seems to imply, which YE's have been saying too, that Cain must have married his sister (or cousin).
What do you think?

But anyway, back to Green.
Although I find the article interesting, he does exactly what OE radiometric daters do: ignore the data (or even saying the data is not there) that does not suit there view.

Let me explain with an analogy. The analogy I choose is one I am familiar with, and I presume that all active posters of the forum of this date of writing are familiar with too.

Google Maps [yes, I realise this is NOT the Bible]: The distance between San Diego and LA is 120 miles. [this is data]
Objection: I believe you have missed out places!
Response: Yes, I concede there are many places in-between these two cities [this does not mean I believe generations were missed out]. PLaces like Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Clemente.
Objection: So therefore the distance is much greater.
Response: No, what is in-between does not change the distance between the beginning-point and the end-point.
Back to the Bible: So I don't care how many generations you think were missed out, the Biblical data clearly states the age of one patriarch, when the next patriarch was begotten. Fitting in missing generations does NOT help you increase the years, and since this argument is from Scripture and not from extra-Biblical sources like Green's article, it is the BETTER argument.
So to Stu and Lee, once again the challenge:
Are the numbers [data] in the Bible wrong?
The distance from SD to LA remains 120 miles, no matter how many times you stop in-between for coffee.

Oh, and just in case someone is tempted to make a logical fallacy in saying that in other genealogies some generations are skipped: that is a moot point.
Some maps only decide to show cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants for the sake of clarity. This does not mean that every map does that. Same with genealogies.
And another oh, before anyone comes up with more long and tedious articles I should read, try and argue your point from Scripture and Sola Scriptura. notes and articles on The Bible may be interesting, but not inspired!


Lucien

Hello gentlemen ...

There's obviously WAY to much to cover here ... in a single Post!
I'm willing to go point-by-point with anyone that thinks the Honest reading of Scripture
position has failed to answer any of the "higher" criticisms being used to undermine it?
Lucien seems to be doing a masterful job of exposing the Fact that our differences are
being influenced by our loyalty to opposing Authorities !!!
It would appear that Stu & Lee believe that Secular Science can "Force" a need to torture
the Scriptures into "meaning" something that is diametrically opposed to what it's "saying"!
Lucien & myself ... choose to take God at His Word ... and seek to find Scientific
explanations (that allow for Divine intervention & authority)... to explain the passages
that appear to violate the limitations of Man's (accepted) knowledge!

I hate when people use the "Slippery Slope" argument to defend against what seems like
a tiny (and somewhat reasonable) exception to a philosophical rule of logic!
But ... if you change "Days" into Billions of years ... a "Global" Flood into a bad
Local storm ... & you believe that "Death" brought Man into the World ... as opposed to
Man (through Sin) bringing Death unto the World .......
then who's to say that these changes are any less valid ???

http://www.usbible.com/usbible/default.htm

Can you tell me WHY? ... your changes are acceptable ... but these are not ???
EVERY single brick that you remove from the Foundation of God's Word ...
ALWAYS weakens the Strength of It's Authority ... and NEVER wins over another Soul
into the Loving Arms of our TRUE Lord and Savior !!!


Bret* 2010

...that a virgin gave birth to a baby boy who turned water into wine, fed 5000 and 4000 from a few loaves and fishes, walked on water, raised a dead man Lazarus after several days from the dead and then Himself was raised from the dead on the third day.
Although that was meant to be sarcastic, from your postings in the past you may actually not believe in some of these things listed?

Let me refer once again to Job 38 and ask you a question: WERE YOU THERE?
Why do you keep implying that if YOU cannot believe something other people who DO believe it are ridiculous? Why do you think it could not have happened in the past, just because you don't see it today? I don't see virgin girls giving birth. How can you be so sure that Noah just lived really long, compared to today's life-span. I guess Adam did not live 930 years, and Methusaleh was not the oldest man in recorded history?
The Bible said it, I believe it, case closed (for me at least).

And yes, I do simply add up the numbers and believe the numbers are right.
I will post a bit more on Green's article if you insist.
But was wondering if you and Stu have an answer for fitting in the generations, without discarding the number of years mentioned very clearly in the Bible between patriarchs. Even if you fit in numerous people that God allegedly forgets to mention, that DOES NOT change the number from Abraham to Isaac, or Isaac to Jacob, etc.

Lucien, I am thinking that it ridiculous to have this dialogue with someone that believes that a great, great, great, great,...grandfather can outlive his decendent who lived 175 years. Surely you can't believe this. This certainly is not in touch with reality. If you have read Green's article how can you possibly conclude that there aren't a lot of skipped generations throughout the geneologies listed? Green has made a solid case, please make yours if you disagree with it.

Lee

Lee (& Green)

Has it ever occurred to you that children may die before their parents, or even grandparents today (no matter how sad this may be)?
Has it occurred to you that the age-span was dramatically shortened after the flood, so Noah (born before the Flood) would still have a long age-span.
How old was Abraham/Sarah when Isaac was born? So don't you think it is possible to have children at older age?
Why don't you look again at Scripture and reason that Abraham was probably NOT the firstborn of Terah), so Noah and Abraham were separated 2 years and did not overlap.


Lucien

Bret, I would welcome you back but I hadn't realized you were gone. Anyway glad you're excited about this topic. You have got to catch up and please don't pass up Stu's recommended articles on Bible geneologies. They are must reads/ views.

Thanks Stu for the link to such good articles on this topic! I thought Green handled the topic best and provided many excellent examples of multiple skipped genenerations in the geneologies. However, Hugh Ross also had a good scientific angle on this topic and provided excellent support for missing generations and a long time period from Noah to Abraham with his analysis of land bridges disappearing at least ten thousand years ago separating the continents after people had migrated to them.

I thought Green's final point was absolutely convincing on the timeline recorded in the Bible if taken literally without skipped generations. It bears repeating below on our blog. It clearly shows the foolishness of directly adding up the numbers. I have to agree with Green that the purpose of the ages provided are to indicate how old each patriarch was when he had a descendent of Abraham and how long he lived. Many generations must have been skipped.

"It may further be added that if the genealogy in Chapter 11 is complete, Peleg, who marks the entrance of a new period, died while all his ancestors from Noah onward were still living. Indeed Shem, Arphaxad, Selah, and Eber must all have outlived not only Peleg, but all the generations following as far as and including Terah. The whole impression of the narrative in Abraham's days is that the Flood was an event long since past, and that the actors in it had passed away ages before. And yet if a chronology is to be constructed out of this genealogy, Noah was for fifty-eight years the contemporary of Abraham, and Shem actually survived him thirty-five years, provided 11:26 is to be taken in its natural sense, that Abraham was born in Terah's seventieth year. This conclusion is well-nigh incredible. The calculation which leads to such a result, must proceed upon a wrong assumption.

On these various grounds we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world."

Lee

Here's a question for everybody.

Why did God record the genealogies? What is their purpose? (besides good bedtime reading)
And does that purpose really makes sense if the majority of generations are actually not mentioned.


I will give you my view:
The genealogies show Jesus' human descent, and links the last Adam directly to the first (1 Cor. 15: 22,45).
It shows (for the Jews among us, He is related to Abraham).
Young Earther see the genealogies as a (continuous) line.
People how say generations are missed (which again I admit the Hebrew WOUD allow), see this line turning into a dotted line, but the longer the time gaps, the fainter the line becomes until it is left unto a few dots whoch sepearates Jesus from His human roots...

Lucien

In case somebody missed me? ... I'M BAAAAAAAACK !!!
I can't believe that I leave Town (and Cyberspace) for a couple of weeks
(for the 1st time in over 4-years)... and come back to find that the Blog's GONE WILD !!!
The last thing that I remember is that I was looking for Footprints on the Moon ...
& that I asked Lee (what at the time seemed like) some simple little questions!
I'm thrilled to see that those innocent little questions turned into the Opener
for the proverbial Can-of-Worms!
I love the fact that you guys are back ON TOPIC !!!
It's going to take me a few days to absorb ALL that's been said!
My cursory assessment leads me to believe that Lucien has exposed the Ultimate "Core" Issue!
(at least for those of us who tend to defend a straight-up face-value reading of Scripture!)
How willing are YOU to read into God's Word ... what YOU want it to say?
Is this EVER O.K. for Christians to do? And ... WHO decides where the line is drawn?
This is likely to get somewhat contentious? ... but let's duel with a smile on our faces!
Compromisers ... Touche' !!!


Bret* 2010

Lee

You are right, I typed Psalm 108 where I meant 104.

I did not mean Luke made the error, please read my post again.
A copyist copied the name Canaan in (only 1 generation, you need hundreds).


Lucien

I don't believe there are errors in the biblical account -- and neither do any of you. If the Bible and science don't agree, we either don't understand what the Bible is saying or we are misinterpreting the science.

I don't think there is any question that there are gaps in the genealogies, neither do most all conservative commentators -- but how big are the gaps? In the biblical literature I see a range from 0 to 60,000 years. I'm really not thrilled about digging into "endless genealogies," but resolution is necessary. One article I found written in 1890, and endorsed by some of my favorite theologians of the 20th century (Charles Hodge, R.K. Harrison, Francis Schaeffer), Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies? (William Henry Green, "Primeval Chronology” Bibliotheca Sacra ). It makes a good case for the gaps being significant. http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/PrimevalChronology.html

I checked out Reasons to Believe as I said I would to see how they explain the Noah to Abraham timeline. And I listened to Hugh Ross' presentation on Who Was Adam? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afIneEYIO8A&list=ULC3zu9xeZJ4s&playnext=3

Regardless of what you think of his theology, he is a good scientist and I think you will find his review of the current scientific literature on anthropology and genetics fascinating as he "proves" that man does not share a common ancestry with hominids or chimpanzees.

The evolutionary tree theory of man is in chaos and the evidence is actually converging on the biblical explanation! Ross says the scientific evidence coming from current anthropology and genetics dates man at 50,000 years ago -- not the 150,000 to 4 million years as NPR, Nova, PBS, news, textbooks, etc. tell us. The evidence he presents are from jewelry, language, clothing, tools, art, mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA.

This is a huge positive for our side!

But we still have to reconcile the science-derived 50,000 years to the Biblical account which YEers put at 6,000 years ago. Ross' bottom line on this is -- allowing for legitimate gaps in the genealogies, and an assumption that the biblical life spans are proportional to the passage of time -- then the biblical as well as archeological dates point to Adam at 50,000BC, Noah at 30,000BC and at Abraham 2000BC +- error bars.

This is interesting stuff to check out.

Lucien,

I didn't see how your reference to Psalms 108:5-9 related to plate tectonics, seas, or mountains. However, the following verses do in Psalms.  

Psalms 104:7 Your shout made the waters retreat; at the sound of your thunderous voice they hurried off 8 as the mountains rose up, and the valleys went down -  to the place you appointed for them.

Is this the verse you meant relating to plate tectonics?

Also, are you claiming that the highest mountains rose up to their present heights in the last few thousand years after the flood. The Bible does not mention this miraculous event to my knowledge, raising their heights by tens of thousands of feet nor is this compatible with the physical laws. This seems like wishful claims of fact to support your YE paradigm.  

I don't have more to add on the descendents and timeline between Noah and Abraham other than to state that Luke made more than a copying error by inserting an extra generation in the ancestry. This was a whole additional generation with a different parent for one of the descendents. This is more than miscopying a name. It indicates additional generations were in the ancestry as Luke researched the history. Call it a copying error if you wish and claim that Luke made an error in doing so, however, be at least aware that some scholars believe the original Hebrew language allows generation skipping due to the same word being used for parent, grandparent and prior ancestor.  The interpretation of the original Hebrew is the likely source of this assumed discrepancy.  I read about this practice and limitation on the accuracy of ancestory a few years ago in reading one of Hugh Ross's books.  His analysis seemed logically solid at that time, however,I haven't researched this thoroughly myself, but if and when I do, I'll post the results.  

You may want to research this more yourself as well; a lot of your claims are based on a simple interpretation of the English translated version, they do not reflect the possible range of meanings of the original Hebrew text in many cases. 

Lee

...what is everybody's view on the so-called "Luciferian flood"?

This is largely proposed by adherers of the "Gap-theory", a huge gap of time in between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.


FYI, I do NOT believe in this.



Lucien

Hi Stu

Cheers.
I think it is key for everyone to remember that we all have our views and opinions, and these sometimes are opposing.
Logic tells us that both cannot be correct.
Although Stu, you have professed to (probably, but correct me if I am wrong) hold to some of your views less firm than Bret and Lee and myself perhaps, you still hold to them tentatively, and in a sense, will disagree with me (and I with you). If one does disagree with me, then they are in fact saying I am wrong, or else they would have to change their viewpoint to come alongside mine. If I am implying that you are wrong, that means that my view is opposing yours and you have not (in my opinion) presented a good enough argument for me to leave my position.
That is the purpose of this forum. We WILL disagree at times, if we did not, we could just close this forum.

I apologise if I did not make clear I had understood your viewpoint by acknowledging it.
I have to say that sometimes Lee's longwinded lectures with lots of long words, cause my head to spin and i might not fully comprehend what he is driving at. Sorry Lee, KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid. No offence meant, it is just the way the expression goes)

But that is then bringing me to the point you probably got already, I like the simplicity of Scripture. Although there are some difficult passages, I admit (as did Peter), most sections should be understood quite readily by the majority of readers in their preferred translation (although still not convinced about paraphrased translations).

Lucien