getting dates about a young earth

[Dan_473]

No, "days" in Genesis are not 24 hours days, but long-time periods.

are all the periods of the same length of time?


***************************
also, interesting english situation, here (if you're interested)... you probably wanted "long time-periods"... though some would say "long periods" is sufficient, since time is implied in "period". "longtime" is a different word, though similar in meaning.

 

[Dan_473]

How old was Abraham or David when Christ was born? Christ was the son of Abraham and the son of David.
How old was Arpachshad when Shelah was really born (and not his x-grand parent)? We dont know. Because we dont know if Shelah was his direct son or not.

I don't think the age of Abraham when Christ is born is given in the "X was n years old when he begat Y" format... so, imo, not the parallel doesn't work.

so when you read,
"Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah",

you take that to mean something like

"Arpachshad lived thirty-five years,
and became the father of a man,
who became the father of a man, (repeat as needed)
who became the father of Shelah"

if that's the case, then I think I see what you mean. then, the question would be, Why the 35, since many different numbers would work?

 

[trofimus]

that's what I'm thinking, too...
when we read, "Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah", there's two possible meanings...

one is that Arp is 35 when Shelah is born.

the other is that there's some mystical meaning to 35... but I haven't heard anyone give an "interpretation" to that...


so I go with Arp is 35 when Shelah is born.

Example (because I dont have time to look up real data of ages):

Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac leads to David after many generations and David to Salomon.

Lets suppose Abraham become the father of Isaac in 80 (sorry if the number is wrong).

I can say:
1. When Abraham was 80 years old, he became the father of Isaac. (not telescoped)
2. When Abraham was 80 years old, he became the father of David. (telescoped)

How old was Abraham, when David became the father of Solomon? You cant simply sum the age of Abraham and the age of David.

 

[trofimus]

are all the periods of the same length of time?


***************************
also, interesting english situation, here (if you're interested)... you probably wanted "long time-periods"... though some would say "long periods" is sufficient, since time is implied in "period". "longtime" is a different word, though similar in meaning.

I will use "aons" instead of "days" so it will be clear what kind of meaning I use.

I dont think they had to be of the same length, or at least I cant see any info on this matter in the Bible nor science.

 

[Dan_473]

Example (because I dont have time to look up real data of ages):

Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac leads to David after many generations and David to Salomon.

Lets suppose Abraham become the father of Isaac in 80 (sorry if the number is wrong).

I can say:
1. When Abraham was 80 years old, he became the father of Isaac. (not telescoped)
2. When Abraham was 80 years old, he became the father of David. (telescoped)

How old was Abraham, when David became the father of Solomon? You cant simply sum the age of Abraham and the age of David.

if we say, "When Abraham was 100 years old, he became the father of David", the issue I see is that abraham wasn't the father of david at 100 years, since david wouldn't be born for a long time after that.

there wouldn't be any david
to be the father of
for another 900 years or so.

now, maybe this was a way of doing things in hebrew...

and don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea of telescoped genealogies...

but combining the "X was n years old when he begat Y" format
with telescoping...
I'm not sure... I haven't seen any other examples of that.

 

[Dan_473]

2. When Abraham was [100] years old, he became the father of David. (telescoped)

I think another interesting thing is why pick "When Abraham was 100 years old, he became the father of David"... the 100 would refer to the birth of isaac... why not 150 years old (guessing) and begat jacob?


maybe it means "Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of the son that would eventually beget Shelah".


again, though, we don't see the form "When Abraham was 100 years old, he became the father of David" anywhere except gen 5 and 11... that I know of...

 

[trofimus]

if we say, "When Abraham was 100 years old, he became the father of David", the issue I see is that abraham wasn't the father of david at 100 years, since david wouldn't be born for a long time after that.

there wouldn't be any david
to be the father of
for another 900 years or so.

now, maybe this was a way of doing things in hebrew...

and don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea of telescoped genealogies...

but combining the "X was n years old when he begat Y" format
with telescoping...
I'm not sure... I haven't seen any other examples of that.

Well, but that is the principle of telescoped genealogies - Abraham became the father of David, through his seed in Isaac. I know it seems strange for us today, but that is how it worked back then. The same like we all died in Adam. Why? Because we are all his seed. We were all hidden in him.

So there is no problem for a bible "author" to describe these events in such a way. And if there is no problem in it theologically and if science says the same thing, why to fight for the opposite attitude that is not necessary theologically nor fitting into physical reality?

 

[trofimus]

I think another interesting thing is why pick "When Abraham was 100 years old, he became the father of David"... the 100 would refer to the birth of isaac... why not 150 years old (guessing) and begat jacob?


maybe it means "Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of the son that would eventually beget Shelah".

again, though, we don't see the form "When Abraham was 100 years old, he became the father of David" anywhere except gen 5 and 11... that I know of...

We dont, but it changes nothing. We can discuss WHY the author of Genesis (whoever he was) chose to give us the age of fathers, but it does not effect nothing on the telescoped/not telescoped thing.

I would say that author wanted to point out their high life-span in these times, its quite obvious, because it is the most interesting part of it.

But again, the question "why there is this info" changes nothing on a reality, that is proven. Like universe to be old, Big Bang and other things.

Explanations that contradicts reality are wrong explanations, no matter how interesting, mystical or cool they are.

We must look for such explanations, that fit in all facts we know, not just into some narrow theological view.

 

[trofimus]

also, interesting english situation, here (if you're interested)... you probably wanted "long time-periods"... though some would say "long periods" is sufficient, since time is implied in "period". "longtime" is a different word, though similar in meaning.

Oh, thank you The more I learn the better

So: long time-periods

 

[Dan_473]

I will use "aons" instead of "days" so it will be clear what kind of meaning I use.

I dont think they had to be of the same length, or at least I cant see any info on this matter in the Bible nor science.

yes, I think "eons" instead of days is a good idea.


so, eons of different length... here's the issue I see.
exodus 20, "You shall labor six days, and do all your work"

and the reasoning for that is

"for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth".

if God actually worked six different amounts of time then rested, then it would follow that the israelites could do that also.

imo, the command then becomes "work some, rest some".

 

[Dan_473]

Well, but that is the principle of telescoped genealogies - Abraham became the father of David, through his seed in Isaac. I know it seems strange for us today, but that is how it worked back then. The same like we all died in Adam. Why? Because we are all his seed. We were all hidden in him.

So there is no problem for a bible "author" to describe these events in such a way. And if there is no problem in it theologically and if science says the same thing, why to fight for the opposite attitude that is not necessary theologically nor fitting into physical reality?

I think we can narrow it down to this:
does the principle of telescoped genealogies fit with the "X was n years old when he begat Y" format?

I think we agree there are other examples of telescoped genealogies... but any in that format?

 

[Dan_473]

We dont, but it changes nothing. We can discuss WHY the author of Genesis (whoever he was) chose to give us the age of fathers, but it does not effect nothing on the telescoped/not telescoped thing.

I would say that author wanted to point out their high life-span in these times, its quite obvious, because it is the most interesting part of it.

I think it makes a huge difference.

if these two chapters are the only place where the "X was n years old when he begat Y" format is used, that in itself is critical in meaning, to me.

also, the current focus for me is not the total lifespan, but the age at which one person becomes the father of the next.

I did notice that in gen 11, the "fatherhood" age is similar to what we expect today... while in gen 5, the ages start high then trend lower.

 

[Kisses1990]

would you put yourself in the "genesis stories are basically myths... intended to give us spiritual truths only" camp, then?

I don't know about ALL Genesis, but with respect to the creation of the universe and evolution of species, yes I do.

 

[Dan_473]

Explanations that contradicts reality are wrong explanations, no matter how interesting, mystical or cool they are.

We must look for such explanations, that fit in all facts we know, not just into some narrow theological view.

I think this raises an interesting philosical issue.

when Jesus turns the water into wine... if we could ask the headwaiter back then what the history of this liquid was, he would say it had been grape juice at least a few weeks ago, maybe years.

so the apparent history of the liquid is different from its actual history... which was known by those who had been watching Jesus... I think the explanations of the other servants would contradict reality.



so, a scientist today... could they be in the role of the headwaiter?

 

[Dan_473]

Oh, thank you The more I learn the better

So: long time-periods

you're welcome!

and actually, the more I think about it, probably the common english way to say it is "long periods of time".

but some would say that's redundant, because "period" usually (but not always) implies "time".

I think an example of the "scholarly" way to say it would be "great lengths of time".

english, like every other language, is imprecise, especially in common usage... but usually gets the meaning across...

 

[trofimus]

so, eons of different length...

I didnt say that. I said there is no info about it.

exodus 20, "You shall labor six days, and do all your work"

and the reasoning for that is

"for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth".

if God actually worked six different amounts of time then rested, then it would follow that the israelites could do that also.

imo, the command then becomes "work some, rest some".

Not "work some, rest some", but "work six, rest one". Length has no impact on the number. There are 6 eons of earth shaping and life creation in Genesis.

 

[trofimus]

does the principle of telescoped genealogies fit with the "X was n years old when he begat Y" format?

Yes, why should not it?

I think we agree there are other examples of telescoped genealogies... but any in that format?

Probably not, because the age of parenthood was not so interesting any more. Well, actually, Abraham was interesting - 100 years old when having a child. Thats why we have this info in the Bible again. That proves my position on what is purpose of the data - to see extremely high age, not to count something.

If it is interesting for you, there is NO genealogy in the Bible, that is not telescoped. All are. So the one in Genesis would be the only one without gaps.

 

[Dan_473]

I don't know about ALL Genesis, but with respect to the creation of the universe and evolution of species, yes I do.

that's cool...

what approach do you use to decide if a story is myth or not? if you don't mind sharing it...

 

[Kisses1990]

There are so many reasons the old earth mythology doesn't work, but here's just one simple reason. If God told Moses to write about Creation Week and God actually wanted us to know that He created over very long ages, well, then Moses would've used Hebrewaic language that referred to long passages of time. But he didn't.

This is not evidence of anything. Who knows what was intended by what was written. We should see what nature tells us and look at the overwhelming evidence for an old earth. It's multifarious.

Geologists, like other scientists, may base their studies on certain assumptions which are presumed to be factual. Case in point, the "geologic column". It was invented (as in, made up from the imagination) by a Scottish lawyer in the 1830's. He had the intention of undermining biblical creation. With very sketchy scientific data, his theory (non-scientific definition) was accepted and promoted. Much if not most of the "science" which is used to support extremely old (more than 20,000 years) ages for the earth is not, actually, observational science at all, but interpretations of historical evidence which are based on presumptions, assumptions, or evolutionary hypotheses.

Or, to put it in much more simple terms, just because a scientist says something, doesn't make it the truth.

It's not just total random assumptions. I admit there are some extrapolations, but again, there is multifarious evidence. It seems to fit the big picture pretty perfectly. But I'm not a geologist. I know more about evolution and biology.

 

[trofimus]

I think this raises an interesting philosical issue.

when Jesus turns the water into wine... if we could ask the headwaiter back then what the history of this liquid was, he would say it had been grape juice at least a few weeks ago, maybe years.

so the apparent history of the liquid is different from its actual history... which was known by those who had been watching Jesus... I think the explanations of the other servants would contradict reality.



so, a scientist today... could they be in the role of the headwaiter?

OK, but in that case you would have to admit, that scientific data are OK and Universe, planet and life REALLY appear to be very old.
You could say it looks so and data confirms it, but it was created to only look old.
I would have nothing against that. I just dont think this theory fits in the complexity of proofs we have about the age of Universe.