Geneaologies: Fact or Fiction

6days

New member
As Christians we understand the significance of the geneaologies connecting us to Adam.... as well as connecting 'first Adam' and 'Last Adam'. It's also significant to trace Christ's lineage to the throne of David.

However, not all agree with that. A recent comment in TOL..."I want to discuss the genealogies in depth, Stripe. Their reliability is of the utmost importance, as the only reason to believe an absurd timeline that is the sum of men's ages reaching up to 1000 years per individual, would be unquestionable reliability. You seem to cede, however, that they aren't reliable, which means that your figure of Genesis being 4000 years old is unreliable.*"

Arw the geneologies correct?
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
As Christians we understand the significance of the geneaologies connecting us to Adam.... as well as connecting 'first Adam' and 'Last Adam'. It's also significant to trace Christ's lineage to the throne of David.

However, not all agree with that. A recent comment in TOL..."I want to discuss the genealogies in depth, Stripe. Their reliability is of the utmost importance, as the only reason to believe an absurd timeline that is the sum of men's ages reaching up to 1000 years per individual, would be unquestionable reliability. You seem to cede, however, that they aren't reliable, which means that your figure of Genesis being 4000 years old is unreliable.*"

Arw the geneologies correct?

Hey......that's my comment! Good comment, too.

6, do you have any science regarding the possibility of a man living over 900 years? How about over 200?
 

6days

New member
Hey......that's my comment! Good comment, too.

6, do you have any science regarding the possibility of a man living over 900 years? How about over 200?

Sure... but it isn't the science which convinces. It's God's Word.

Kdall.... notice that the early humans to the time of Noah lived long periods of time. After that there is a sharp curve downwards. That decline in longevity is consistent with the Biblical model of perfect creation and then the curse and the effects of accumulating mutations.

I can't use Google at the moment but I have posted a link here previous to a secular scientist saying humans could live 1,000 years if science could fix a few things. It sometimes is amusing how secularists come so close to providing evidence that supports God's Word.
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
Sure... but it isn't the science which convinces. It's God's Word.

Kdall.... notice that the early humans to the time of Noah lived long periods of time. After that there is a sharp curve downwards. That decline in longevity is consistent with the Biblical model of perfect creation and then the curse and the effects of accumulating mutations.
So your literal interpretation of Genesis is consistent with your literal interpretation of Genesis. Imagine that.

I can't use Google at the moment but I have posted a link here previous to a secular scientist saying humans could live 1,000 years if science could fix a few things. It sometimes is amusing how secularists come so close to providing evidence that supports God's Word.

When talking of science (you using genealogies to get your timeline of Earth's existence), only science convinces

When you do get the time, please post it. I'm very eager
 

6days

New member
When talking of science (you using genealogies to get your timeline of Earth's existence), only science convinces
When you do get the time, please post it. I'm very eager
It is God's Word which convinces. The geneaologies are foundational to Christ and the gospel.
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
It is God's Word which convinces. The geneaologies are foundational to Christ and the gospel.

That's an admission that your views in science are 100% based in an impossible genealogy timeline that you cannot verify at all? Cool.

They aren't foundational btw. Even those around in Christ's time didn't think they were. This literal view on everything is a fairly recent invention.


You said on another thread that you have a link explaining that a man can live 1000 years under the right conditions, and that you couldn't Google for it then. Can you post it now?
 

6days

New member
Kdall said:
You said on another thread that you have a link explaining that a man can live 1000 years under the right conditions, and that you couldn't Google for it then. Can you post it now?
Nope... but I will this evening.
 
Last edited:

Wick Stick

Well-known member
During the period in which Genesis was written, people measured dates by the reigns of the kings. A good date from the bronze or Iron ages usually reads, "In the 3rd year of ______." Whenever someone measures time, they have to have a fixed point, and in ancient times, the standard seems to be the start of the reign of the king. There was no BC or AD or fixed year that all years were measured from.

Genesis follows this model as well, but the Biblical chronology is irregular for the time it was written in one way. It gives an extra piece of information - the age of each patriarch at the time his son was born. This information is only good for one reason. It is used to calculate the total number of years from creation to flood. The author intended for the reader to perform this exercise. There's no other reason to include those dates.

So far so good. But here's the rub. The years listed in our Bibles today are based on a translation of the Hebrew text compiled by the Masoretes, in the 5th-10th centuries AD, 500-1000 years after Christ. And the Masoretes, Jews during a time when there was antipathy between the church and Judaism, were profoundly anti-Christian. If every other source basically matched them, we would overlook that blip on their resume'.

But that isn't the case. The Greek Old Testament (LXX) contains a number of differences in the dates in these chapters. The LXX is a collection of Greek translations of earlier Hebrew texts. The translations are said to have been done in 70BC, and we have manuscripts and fragments of them dating from the 2nd century onwards, as well as quotations from them (included in your New Testament) dating from the 1st century. Essentially, this was the Bible that the 1st century church used.

Here are some of the differences found in LXX versions of Genesis:

Enoch is said to have fathered Methusaleh at 165 instead of 65.
Enoch is said to have lived 200 years rather than 300 years before being raptured.
Methusaleh is said to have fathered Lamech at 197 instead of 187.
Methusaleh is said to have lived another 802 years after the birth, rather than 782.

Something interesting here - this would mean that Methusaleh lived to be precisely 999 years old. That's a significant number because it's 1 short of 1000, and given the "day = thousand years," and "you shall surely die in the same day you sin" verses.

Something else interesting here, being born 100 years later, and living an extra 30 years, would mean that if we "do the math," Methusalah lived through Noah's flood. We know that he wasn't on the ark with Noah ("8 souls were saved through water" says the Bible). That's a problem... unless you don't believe the flood to be global, I suppose.

So which text is right? Who corrected who? Should I go with the Masoretes, as most translators have? Or should I go with the LXX, which the New Testament authors frequently quoted, and apparently gave weight to?

Jarrod

(this is re-posted from another forum, which is why it reads like an OP)
 

6days

New member
Wickstick... It would have been nice to give credit to whoever you copy an pasted this from.... Anyways...

Wickstick said:
During the period in which Genesis was.....

Whoever composed that did have a few good comments... Other comments are reading stuff into the text that simply are not there. For example scripture does not say "day = thousand years,"
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Whoever composed that did have a few good comments... Other comments are reading stuff into the text that simply are not there. For example scripture does not say "day = thousand years,"

2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

 

6days

New member
2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Thanks Alate...
As I said, Scripture does not say "day = thousand years,"
Using your verse to support that notion means Jonah was in the fish 3,000 years and the 1,000 years will be over in a day.
 

chair

Well-known member
Genealogies: Fact or Fiction
The title of this thread presents a false dichotomy. The genealogies are not meant to present history and a timeline in the sense that we moderns think of it.
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Genealogies: Fact or Fiction
The title of this thread presents a false dichotomy. The genealogies are not meant to present history and a timeline in the sense that we moderns think of it.

What were the genealogies meant to present, if not a direct chronology from one literal generation to the next?
 

Dominic4

BANNED
Banned
Its evening now...:)

Hello 6. Kdall here. I got banned, but I've got my tricks. Can't nobody hold me back.


Your article was truly fascinating. No joke at all. But surely you noticed the futuristic technology talked about in it? Tech that wasn't available obviously to the patriarchs......and therefore is in no way evidence for their incredible lifespans being accurate.

As others here have told you, the genealogies are and never were meant literally. They convey a deeper message
 

daqq

Well-known member
During the period in which Genesis was written, people measured dates by the reigns of the kings. A good date from the bronze or Iron ages usually reads, "In the 3rd year of ______." Whenever someone measures time, they have to have a fixed point, and in ancient times, the standard seems to be the start of the reign of the king. There was no BC or AD or fixed year that all years were measured from.

Genesis follows this model as well, but the Biblical chronology is irregular for the time it was written in one way. It gives an extra piece of information - the age of each patriarch at the time his son was born. This information is only good for one reason. It is used to calculate the total number of years from creation to flood. The author intended for the reader to perform this exercise. There's no other reason to include those dates.

So far so good. But here's the rub. The years listed in our Bibles today are based on a translation of the Hebrew text compiled by the Masoretes, in the 5th-10th centuries AD, 500-1000 years after Christ. And the Masoretes, Jews during a time when there was antipathy between the church and Judaism, were profoundly anti-Christian. If every other source basically matched them, we would overlook that blip on their resume'.

But that isn't the case. The Greek Old Testament (LXX) contains a number of differences in the dates in these chapters. The LXX is a collection of Greek translations of earlier Hebrew texts. The translations are said to have been done in 70BC, and we have manuscripts and fragments of them dating from the 2nd century onwards, as well as quotations from them (included in your New Testament) dating from the 1st century. Essentially, this was the Bible that the 1st century church used.

Here are some of the differences found in LXX versions of Genesis:

Enoch is said to have fathered Methusaleh at 165 instead of 65.
Enoch is said to have lived 200 years rather than 300 years before being raptured.
Methusaleh is said to have fathered Lamech at 197 instead of 187.
Methusaleh is said to have lived another 802 years after the birth, rather than 782.

Something interesting here - this would mean that Methusaleh lived to be precisely 999 years old. That's a significant number because it's 1 short of 1000, and given the "day = thousand years," and "you shall surely die in the same day you sin" verses.

Something else interesting here, being born 100 years later, and living an extra 30 years, would mean that if we "do the math," Methusalah lived through Noah's flood. We know that he wasn't on the ark with Noah ("8 souls were saved through water" says the Bible). That's a problem... unless you don't believe the flood to be global, I suppose.

So which text is right? Who corrected who? Should I go with the Masoretes, as most translators have? Or should I go with the LXX, which the New Testament authors frequently quoted, and apparently gave weight to?

Jarrod

(this is re-posted from another forum, which is why it reads like an OP)

Hi Jarrod, I do not recall hearing of a Septuagint manuscript where the total age of Methuselah adds up to nine hundred and ninety-nine years but do recall that in the LXX texts he does outlive the flood. Perhaps that is because there are four generations to the man, (yes that would be symbolic as in other things you seem to imply, and yes, things which have clearly been tampered with). Methuselah was indeed with Noah if he was in the blood and in the heart and mind of Noah, (again sort a Hebraism kinda thinking) and his genes were surely in the blood, and of course Noah was perfectly complete in his [four] generations. :crackup:
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
Hi daq,

Long time no see. (I assume you are the same person. I haven't met too many people with that handle.)

Jarrod
 
Top