How do the Genesis genealogies affect a timeline?

[Studyin'2Show]

Recently there has been some discussion concerning how or why many believe the Genesis genealogies can be used to support the age of the earth. Some say that there may be generations missing. However, that really is not the issue due to the language used within the text.

Genesis 5:3-8
3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.

Whether Seth is Adam's son or grandson or great-grandson really doesn't affect the timeline. It is very specific that Adam was 130 when Seth was born. Then it's just as specific that Seth (who was born when Adam was 130) was 105 when Enosh was born. For all my non-mathematicians out there, that means Adam was 235 when Enosh was born and if we go forward we see that he was 325 when Cainan was born and so on. The son, grandson, thing really makes no difference at all in the timeline. If you have never taken the time to plot it out yourself...do it! Seeing it in your own handwriting really helps to at least understand why people see it so definitively. Read all of Genesis 5 (Adam to Shem, Ham, and Japheth) Then move to Genesis 11:10-26. Mapping it out like this one http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/timeline/index.cfm Except don't worry about graphing it back in time (???BC etc) Just look at how from Adam to Abraham's son Isaac who was born when Abraham was 100, fits nicely together based on time (ages).

Now, after Isaac things losen quite a bit but not enough to squeeze in thousands or tens of thousands of years. Anyway, that's why I see it as a chronological map. :dunno: What say ye? :)

God Bless!

[Rookie78]

Recently there has been some discussion concerning how or why many believe the Genesis genealogies can be used to support the age of the earth. Some say that there may be generations missing. However, that really is not the issue due to the language used within the text.

Genesis 5:3-8
3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.

Whether Seth is Adam's son or grandson or great-grandson really doesn't affect the timeline. It is very specific that Adam was 130 when Seth was born. Then it's just as specific that Seth (who was born when Adam was 130) was 105 when Enosh was born. For all my non-mathematicians out there, that means Adam was 235 when Enosh was born and if we go forward we see that he was 325 when Cainan was born and so on. The son, grandson, thing really makes no difference at all in the timeline. If you have never taken the time to plot it out yourself...do it! Seeing it in your own handwriting really helps to at least understand why people see it so definitively. Read all of Genesis 5 (Adam to Shem, Ham, and Japheth) Then move to Genesis 11:10-26. Mapping it out like this one http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/timeline/index.cfm Except don't worry about graphing it back in time (???BC etc) Just look at how from Adam to Abraham's son Isaac who was born when Abraham was 100, fits nicely together based on time (ages).

Now, after Isaac things losen quite a bit but not enough to squeeze in thousands or tens of thousands of years. Anyway, that's why I see it as a chronological map. :dunno: What say ye? :)

God Bless!

I believe that you are essentially correct in the age of the earth. I feel that we must consider that the earth was perfect when it was first created, in any "aged" state that God created it in. Why would it be in an aged state? It must be for stability. For everything was intricately designed for good. But what happened later? Man sinned sending the creation in a tailspin. Science cannot measure the effects of sin.

Romans 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.

[Studyin'2Show]

I really want this thread to not get into who's right or wrong, dating methods, or anything like that. The topic is just how and why many believe the genealogies in Genesis plot out a timeline. It would be easy to derail so I want to make sure we stay on topic. ;)

[RJ Mac]

Wow! Looking at that time line along with that question sure makes me sit
and think. But I believe there is an explanation here.

In Mt. the time line is as follows Mt.1:17
Abraham to David - 14 generations - 2100 - 1000 BC = 1100 yrs
David to deportation - 14 generations - 1100 - 600 BC = 400 yrs
Deportation to the Messiah 14 generations 600 - 0 BC = 600 yrs

Even number of generations uneven number of years.
Life spans would be 78 yrs; then 28 yrs; then 43 yrs;

We have examples of names being skipped over in the genealogies
Ex.Nebuchadnezzar is the father of Belshazzar - Dan.5:2
But we know Nebuchadnezzar is his grandfather and whole generation skipped over.
Nubuchadnezzars son was Amel-Marduk Evil-Merodach 2Ki.25:27

So in the genealogies the one named as the son could be the grand son
or even great grandson, possible reason - the true son, whom the genealogies
still passed down through, was not worthy of mention, so it still rings
true to put the grandson in the fathers place. Keeping the genealogy
in tact and adjusting it to fit requirements needed to keep it 14 generations
in a 400 yr period and 14 generations in a 1,000 yr period.

Which would explain the perfect genealogies of Genesis;
Adam to Noah 10 generations; Shem to Terah 10 generations.
And explain why God picked these ten because it made a logical sentence
when one interprets their names.

Not to stretch the genealogies out to 100,000 of years but to show one
cannot work with a direct interpretation. This is why I date the world to be
10,000 yrs old and not the direct interpretation of 4,004 BC as the beginning.

I'm sure this should make for interesting comments, which I look forward to
because this thread really challenged me to explain why I believe the way I do. Thanks!

RJ

[Studyin'2Show]

According to the OP, this thread is to consider the genealogies from Adam to Isaac, so any issues you may see with the genealogy from Abraham to David really are for a different discussion. ;) I mentioned in the OP that I wanted to look at the language which ties years together not generations. Take the time to read the language concerning how old each father is when the next man mentioned is born. Whether it speaks of father, grandfather or otherwise, how is the language of the years dismissed.

[Old Earther]

The notion that the age of the earth can be determined by studying geneaologies is mosguided on two counts.

1. The actual physical evidence found in the Earth tells a story that dates back into great antiquity and also tells a story wherein humans emerge late on the scene.

2. The genealogical approach is founded on a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2, however these creation accounts contradict each other if taken literally.

[David Taylor]

The notion that the age of the earth can be determined by studying geneaologies is mosguided on two counts.

1. The actual physical evidence found in the Earth tells a story that dates back into great antiquity and also tells a story wherein humans emerge late on the scene.

Maybe so.


2. The genealogical approach is founded on a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2,

Maybe so...but since no geneologies are mentioned in depth in chapters 1 and 2, there really isn't any genelogical approach drawn from those two chapters; other than the starting point of all geneologies.




however these creation accounts contradict each other if taken literally.
Nope.
Genesis 1 and 2 harmonize and add to one another; there is no contradiction within them.

[Studyin'2Show]

Please, can we refrain from this being the same old conflict? I would like discussion to focus on the fact that the genealogies in Genesis 5 mentions ages and lifespans in relation to the next person mentioned in such a way that ties them together. I am not attempting to prove any points but merely to discuss these ties. There are enough threads in conflict, this one is to be for edifying discussion of these particular scriptures. ;) Please respect the topic of the OP.

Now, does anyone think that the text shows that Adam was 325 when Cainan was born? Why or why not?

God Bless!

[David Taylor]

does anyone think that the text shows that Adam was 325 when Cainan was born? Why or why not?


That's how I counted it.

Doing the dating from Adam forward, basing Adam at year 0, I tabulated it as:

YearPerson
0000 Adam
0130 Seth
0235 Enos
0325 Cainan
0395 Mahalaleel
0460 Jared
0622 Enoch
0687 Methuselah
0874 Lamech
1056 Noah
1556 Shem, Ham, and Japeth
1656 GREAT FLOOD (the same year Methuselah died at 969 yrs old)
1658 Shem begat Arphaxad 2 years after the Flood

[Studyin'2Show]

Thanks, David! Can anyone who does not see the clear ties please explain based on the language of the text, how Adam could not have been 325 years old when Cainan was born? I am truly trying to understand what you are seeing in the text that allows for some other conclusion.

[markedward]

In regards to the chart... why does it seem to depict that David (and multiple other people) lived longer than Moses, who was 120 when he died? The book of Samuel says David was 30 years old when he became king, and Kings says he ruled as king of Israel for 40 years... even if there would be a few years unaccounted for, David would still be between 70-80 years old when he died... but the chart you've provided depicts his lifespan as being nearly 150 years.

If it's giving an "estimated" timespan for when he lived, it seems odd that Moses' timespan is still right at 120 years while David's is almost double his actual lifespan.

[Studyin'2Show]

In regards to the chart... why does it seem to depict that David (and multiple other people) lived longer than Moses, who was 120 when he died? The book of Samuel says David was 30 years old when he became king, and Kings says he ruled as king of Israel for 40 years... even if there would be a few years unaccounted for, David would still be between 70-80 years old when he died... but the chart you've provided depicts his lifespan as being nearly 150 years.

If it's giving an "estimated" timespan for when he lived, it seems odd that Moses' timespan is still right at 120 years while David's is almost double his actual lifespan.For the purpose of this thread I want to focus on the time from Adam to Isaac. I was merely using the link as an example of how to do your own graph. I prefer to go forward from zero. As I stated earlier, after Isaac things get a bit sketchy as far as time goes. As for your question, I have no idea why whoever put together the chart has the line for David looking like he lived longer than Moses. :dunno:

I actually started the thread because I am really curious as to how those who believe there are chunks of time in between in regards to the genealogy from Adam to Isaac, reconcile the language used in that every step of the way it tells us exactly how old the predecessor is when the child is born and then how old that grown child is when the next child is born? What seems clear to me is not so to others and I was just curious as to what they see. :hmm:

God Bless!

[Lamplighter]

T
However these creation accounts contradict each other if taken literally.

Contradictions mean lies. Genesis is a lie, then Christ is a lie. If Christ is a lie, then all of scripture is a lie.

Not trying to derail the thread, but either the Bible is right, or Darwin is right. Both can't be right.

[crawfish]

Contradictions mean lies. Genesis is a lie, then Christ is a lie. If Christ is a lie, then all of scripture is a lie.

Not trying to derail the thread, but either the Bible is right, or Darwin is right. Both can't be right.

Yes, they can.

Contradiction is a literary method used to make a point, as are paradox, symbolism and ambiguity. To deny them and to try and make literal sense out of said scripture is to take them out of their intended context.

[Studyin'2Show]

Boy! Are we that used to being combative that we can't just discuss scripture? Come on guys! Read the language of Genesis 5 in regards to mentioning the age of the predecessor when the child is born and then again with the grown child once the next child is born. Based on the text is it possible that Adam was not 325 when Cainan was born and so on? Why or why not?

[GitRDunn]

Boy! Are we that used to being combative that we can't just discuss scripture? Come on guys! Read the language of Genesis 5 in regards to mentioning the age of the predecessor when the child is born and then again with the grown child once the next child is born. Based on the text is it possible that Adam was not 325 when Cainan was born and so on? Why or why not?
I don't think there's any way to twist the years around to say anything different. When it says he was so old when the one is born, then how old that one is when the next is born, etc., there's not any way to misinterpret that and I personally have never tried to put extra years in here. I don't think the genealogies can be applied to the age of the Earth, however, because Adam wasn't created until the 6th day and the debate centers around how long the days before that took (when thinking about the age of the Earth)

[Studyin'2Show]

I don't think the genealogies can be applied to the age of the Earth, however, because Adam wasn't created until the 6th day and the debate centers around how long the days before that took (when thinking about the age of the Earth)Absolutely true, so I can see someone putting time elsewhere that they feel is more ambiguous, though I wouldn't agree. But I can not understand how there are those who say that there may be time in between the generations in the Genesis 5-Isaac's birth genealogies, yet people do. In fact, someone that I highly respect recently said that they feel there may be time interjected within these genealogies which is what spurred me to start this thread. I'm really curious as to 'what' people may see within the text that would cause them to believe that.

God Bless!

[GitRDunn]

Absolutely true, so I can see someone putting time elsewhere that they feel is more ambiguous, though I wouldn't agree. But I can not understand how there are those who say that there may be time in between the generations in the Genesis 5-Isaac's birth genealogies, yet people do. In fact, someone that I highly respect recently said that they feel there may be time interjected within these genealogies which is what spurred me to start this thread. I'm really curious as to 'what' people may see within the text that would cause them to believe that.

God Bless!
Well that's a new one to me and I've never heard that, but I can't see how you can infer that either. People can debate all day about how the the six "days" at the beginning of Genesis are because there's valid information for a good debate for both sides, but I don't know how you could debate this. There's not much ambiguity when talking about a person's age because their age is obviously in Earth years. The only possible way I think there could be any debate is that humans back then divided their years up differently than we do now, but that would be a pretty weak argument.

[Studyin'2Show]

Well that's a new one to me and I've never heard that, but I can't see how you can infer that either. People can debate all day about how the the six "days" at the beginning of Genesis are because there's valid information for a good debate for both sides, but I don't know how you could debate this. There's not much ambiguity when talking about a person's age because their age is obviously in Earth years. The only possible way I think there could be any debate is that humans back then divided their years up differently than we do now, but that would be a pretty weak argument.I've actually had someone tell my that in the Middle East they don't necessarily count years the way we do. He tells the story of an archaeologist at a dig asking a man whose young teen or pre-teen son was with him how old his son was and the man said, "Maybe 30, maybe 40" or something like that. I've never been able to get anyone to look at the actual text, the scripture itself and explain how they justify that. I was hoping to get some takers. :dunno: Oh well!

God Bless!

[GitRDunn]

I've actually had someone tell my that in the Middle East they don't necessarily count years the way we do. He tells the story of an archaeologist at a dig asking a man whose young teen or pre-teen son was with him how old his son was and the man said, "Maybe 30, maybe 40" or something like that. I've never been able to get anyone to look at the actual text, the scripture itself and explain how they justify that. I was hoping to get some takers. :dunno: Oh well!

God Bless!
Well that Middle East thing is a made up bunch of bull crap. The man may not have taken the time to figure his son's exact age, but their years are the same length as our's and everyone else's around the world. If this will act as incentive to anyone, I would like to hear an argument from a scriptural perspective as to how you could fit extra years in there too.

[crawfish]

I've actually had someone tell my that in the Middle East they don't necessarily count years the way we do. He tells the story of an archaeologist at a dig asking a man whose young teen or pre-teen son was with him how old his son was and the man said, "Maybe 30, maybe 40" or something like that. I've never been able to get anyone to look at the actual text, the scripture itself and explain how they justify that. I was hoping to get some takers. :dunno: Oh well!

God Bless!

I did NOT say they counted years differently. What I said was that numbers contained alternate meanings, and often the answer they would give expressed the symbolic, rather than literal, meaning of the number. It's not that they didn't know the exact number of revolutions around the sun, or that they counted years differently. The question itself (how old is he) had different implications in that society. While we regard it as a desire to know a literal age, the Iranian man answered it according to his cultural values; as a symbolic representation of the boy's maturity.

It's not a difficult concept. I asked a friend how long it took him to finish his PhD dissertation, he said "forever and a day". I ask the same thing to someone with an ancient Middle Eastern mindset and he might answer in that same vein "40 years". Both answers mean exactly the same thing - "a long time" - and both, if taken literally, would imply a completely different thing. We don't count time differently - we have idioms that express ideas clearly in our own culture.

I hope you can understand my point a little better now. I really don't appreciate being made fun of for something that I didn't mean. ;)

[GitRDunn]

I did NOT say they counted years differently. What I said was that numbers contained alternate meanings, and often the answer they would give expressed the symbolic, rather than literal, meaning of the number. It's not that they didn't know the exact number of revolutions around the sun, or that they counted years differently. The question itself (how old is he) had different implications in that society. While we regard it as a desire to know a literal age, the Iranian man answered it according to his cultural values; as a symbolic representation of the boy's maturity.

It's not a difficult concept. I asked a friend how long it took him to finish his PhD dissertation, he said "forever and a day". I ask the same thing to someone with an ancient Middle Eastern mindset and he might answer in that same vein "40 years". Both answers mean exactly the same thing - "a long time" - and both, if taken literally, would imply a completely different thing. We don't count time differently - we have idioms that express ideas clearly in our own culture.

I hope you can understand my point a little better now. I really don't appreciate being made fun of for something that I didn't mean. ;)
Well if this is what you meant and you are who S2S was referring to, then I am sorry if I offended you with my comments. When explained like that I have to agree that different regions of the world use different idioms/sayings to express ideas (like time), but I also don't think this applies to the Genesis genealogies as those were definite years. Do you disagree with the age of the men at the births of their kids, grandkids, etc, as they are listed in Genesis?

[Studyin'2Show]

I did NOT say they counted years differently. What I said was that numbers contained alternate meanings, and often the answer they would give expressed the symbolic, rather than literal, meaning of the number. It's not that they didn't know the exact number of revolutions around the sun, or that they counted years differently. The question itself (how old is he) had different implications in that society. While we regard it as a desire to know a literal age, the Iranian man answered it according to his cultural values; as a symbolic representation of the boy's maturity.

It's not a difficult concept. I asked a friend how long it took him to finish his PhD dissertation, he said "forever and a day". I ask the same thing to someone with an ancient Middle Eastern mindset and he might answer in that same vein "40 years". Both answers mean exactly the same thing - "a long time" - and both, if taken literally, would imply a completely different thing. We don't count time differently - we have idioms that express ideas clearly in our own culture.

I hope you can understand my point a little better now. I really don't appreciate being made fun of for something that I didn't mean. ;)I didn't mean to offend you, crawfish. That is the way I took what you said. If a Middle Eastern man told me it took 40 years to get his PhD I would think he meant 40 years. 40 years does not seem like an idiom to me and I have never seen it used as such. That being said, I still do not see how that logic can be interjected into this non-poetic text being discussed here. I would love to hear you or anyone explain it based on the scripture. I am really not intending to be combative. I would prefer if the thread did not go in that direction.

God Bless!

[crawfish]

Well if this is what you meant and you are who S2S was referring to, then I am sorry if I offended you with my comments. When explained like that I have to agree that different regions of the world use different idioms/sayings to express ideas (like time), but I also don't think this applies to the Genesis genealogies as those were definite years. Do you disagree with the age of the men at the births of their kids, grandkids, etc, as they are listed in Genesis?

No problems - I would have had the same reaction myself, I certainly don't believe that which was implied. Rest assured, I blame myself for not being clear enough when I initially made the post.

As far as the ages - I admit, the weakest part of my contention is that if there are symbolic meanings to those numbers, they have been long lost. I've heard some speculation but very little hard data.

The only two ages that I have heard solid symbolic arguments on are the ages of Joseph and Moses.

Joseph was reported to live to 110; in Egyptian culture, it is known that 110 is an age that signifies one as being a model Egyptian. There have been a few dozen findings of ancient Egyptian accounts where a man was reported to have lived to be 110 years old; it is probably no coincidence that this was reported for Joseph as well, to indicate the high level of esteem he had in that society.

Moses lived to be 120. This is 10 more than Joseph's age, which is significant. It also represents 40x3; 40 being the number of ritual purification. 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in the wilderness, 40 years leading Israel. A perfectly round number that represents the growth and emergence into becoming Israel's preeminent leader throughout his life.

With these two having symbolic meanings, it's not a stretch to assume that symbolic meanings were applied to the other biblical characters as well. Thus, I am not *sure* that they are symbolic or intended to be symbolic, but I don't believe the evidence is strong enough to put my faith on either way.

[crawfish]

I didn't mean to offend you, crawfish. That is the way I took what you said. If a Middle Eastern man told me it took 40 years to get his PhD I would think he meant 40 years. 40 years does not seem like an idiom to me and I have never seen it used as such. That being said, I still do not see how that logic can be interjected into this non-poetic text being discussed here. I would love to hear you or anyone explain it based on the scripture. I am really not intending to be combative. I would prefer if the thread did not go in that direction.

God Bless!

No offense taken. If I had a stronger explanation, I would give it, but this is something that I'm still working on. I don't have a strong enough argument to put my faith on either way.

[Studyin'2Show]

No offense taken. If I had a stronger explanation, I would give it, but this is something that I'm still working on. I don't have a strong enough argument to put my faith on either way.Thank you for your offering here. I know this is a tiny bit off topic but do you feel that Moses actually had his 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in exile, and 40 years in the wilderness leading Israel? Or do you feel it is only symbolic?

[crawfish]

Thank you for your offering here. I know this is a tiny bit off topic but do you feel that Moses actually had his 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in exile, and 40 years in the wilderness leading Israel? Or do you feel it is only symbolic?

I lean towards symbolic.

Answer me this. Considering that so many of the kings had 40-year reigns - David, Solomon and Rehoboam for three (too lazy to look it up right now) - do you think that adds strength to the assertion that these might be symbolic numbers? Or did God assure that in each of these situations, they occurred over a proper 40 units?

[Studyin'2Show]

I lean towards symbolic.

Answer me this. Considering that so many of the kings had 40-year reigns - David, Solomon and Rehoboam for three (too lazy to look it up right now) - do you think that adds strength to the assertion that these might be symbolic numbers? Or did God assure that in each of these situations, they occurred over a proper 40 units?You must be thinking of Saul, David, and Solomon. Reheboam's reign was only 17 yrs. Due to the language in the text, especially the specificity when it comes to chronicling the kings I'd simply say, it is was it is. :) There are also kings with varying lengths of reigns from 1 month to 55 years. It appears that the scribes went to great lengths to keep accurate accounts. Though I can certainly see symbolism throughout the scriptures, there is absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that the 40 years does not really mean it was 40 years.

God Bless!

[GitRDunn]

You must be thinking of Saul, David, and Solomon. Reheboam's reign was only 17 yrs. Due to the language in the text, especially the specificity when it comes to chronicling the kings I'd simply say, it is was it is. :) There are also kings with varying lengths of reigns from 1 month to 55 years. It appears that the scribes went to great lengths to keep accurate accounts. Though I can certainly see symbolism throughout the scriptures, there is absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that the 40 years does not really mean it was 40 years.

God Bless!
I agree with you here. I believe the way the scriptures are written is in a literal count of years (as far as the ages and reigns in this case) and it isn't figurative years based on a local expression. There were a lot of kings, so the odds of a few of them sharing the same length of reign is high, it just happens to be that they were close together (back to back).

[crawfish]

You must be thinking of Saul, David, and Solomon. Reheboam's reign was only 17 yrs. Due to the language in the text, especially the specificity when it comes to chronicling the kings I'd simply say, it is was it is. :) There are also kings with varying lengths of reigns from 1 month to 55 years. It appears that the scribes went to great lengths to keep accurate accounts. Though I can certainly see symbolism throughout the scriptures, there is absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that the 40 years does not really mean it was 40 years.

God Bless!


I probably meant Jeraboam II (whose reign was 41 years - 40+1, which also has some symbolic meaning). Joash also had a 40-year reign.

There are just too many instances of perfect 40 in scripture for me to dismiss its symbolicness. And I'll have to re-look up my sources, but there seem to be plenty of extra-biblical sources that also use 40 in the same way.

[Studyin'2Show]

I probably meant Jeraboam II (whose reign was 41 years - 40+1, which also has some symbolic meaning). Joash also had a 40-year reign.

There are just too many instances of perfect 40 in scripture for me to dismiss its symbolicness. And I'll have to re-look up my sources, but there seem to be plenty of extra-biblical sources that also use 40 in the same way.I definitely would not deny its symbolism. But why question its actuality? :hmm: The two are not mutually exclusive.

[crawfish]

I definitely would not deny its symbolism. But why question its actuality? :hmm: The two are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed. It does have implications on how God works in the world, though; when he'd manipulate the time of an event to exactly match an existing symbolic meaning.

On the other hand, allowing for a symbolic representation of existing motifs still allows scripture to be true, yet also allows some flexibility in dealing with new discovery. If we discover relics that undoubtedly point to the reign of David, yet date it a hundred years before literal Biblical genealogy would indicate, we can alter our view of some of the timeframes to fit this (and we would). Why put our faith in something that may or may not be right? Instead, I think it's more valuable to put our faith in the message of Scripture and not the mechanics.

[Studyin'2Show]

There was a time when archaeologists were convinced that King David was a myth. It was not until his name was found recently outside of the Bible that he was now been accepted as factual. My position is that the Bible was ALWAYS right, even before King David was confirmed elsewhere. Should we base our faith on what is outside of the Bible or based on what is within? :hmm:

[crawfish]

There was a time when archaeologists were convinced that King David was a myth. It was not until his name was found recently outside of the Bible that he was now been accepted as factual. My position is that the Bible was ALWAYS right, even before King David was confirmed elsewhere. Should we base our faith on what is outside of the Bible or based on what is within? :hmm:

I base my faith in God through Christ. I believe that His word is 100% true, in that it says exactly what God intended. What it intended is not always literal. There are plenty of examples of things in scripture that were thought to be fictional but were not (David, Hittites, etc). There are also plenty of things in scripture thought to be literal but turned out not to be. Science is also revealing of God's nature, and as we discover more, it shouldn't surprise us that we'll learn elements of God's nature that we didn't know before.

p.s. It is really very unscientific to deny that a man named David existed as a king of Israel altogether. Even from a purely secular point of view, the bible is an ancient text and (if not for its modern religious application) would be considered satisfactory to assume that such a man existed.

[Studyin'2Show]

Yet there were plenty of scoffers within the archaeological community concerning the reality of King David. As far as the faith comment, I was merely responding to your comment here.Why put our faith in something that may or may not be right?But you still have not shown why you would not accept the amount of years, either of those mentioned in the genealogy or in cases like the duration of the kings reigns. :hmm: The Chronicles is very specific in it's details. The very definition of the word 'chronicle' is a chronological record of events, right?

[GitRDunn]

Yet there were plenty of scoffers within the archaeological community concerning the reality of King David. As far as the faith comment, I was merely responding to your comment here.But you still have not shown why you would not accept the amount of years, either of those mentioned in the genealogy or in cases like the duration of the kings reigns. :hmm: The Chronicles is very specific in it's details. The very definition of the word 'chronicle' is a chronological record of events, right?
I agree that it is a true chronicle of their reigns and ages. I just had a thought, too, Crawfish, you say that 40 is a significant and thus symbolic number in Hebrew/Israel (can't remember what you actually said), but if that is true now, isn't it likely that it didn't used to be? Symbolic things in cultures change over time and this would have had thousands of years to change. Also, what if 40 is considered important/symbolic now because of the multiple occasions it shows up in the Old Testament, but wasn't significant when it was originally written? Maybe it worked out that all of these things lasted 40 years and thus it started to take on a special meaning to the people and is now a symbolic number.

[crawfish]

Yet there were plenty of scoffers within the archaeological community concerning the reality of King David. As far as the faith comment, I was merely responding to your comment here.But you still have not shown why you would not accept the amount of years, either of those mentioned in the genealogy or in cases like the duration of the kings reigns. :hmm: The Chronicles is very specific in it's details. The very definition of the word 'chronicle' is a chronological record of events, right?

I think they might not be literal, at least all of them, because of the evidence of the symbolic nature of the numbers. Extra-biblical accounts lend support to this idea because they also use numbers in the same fashion. Although I don't use those accounts to interpret scripture, I do consider them added support of a particular reading of scripture.

I agree that it is a true chronicle of their reigns and ages. I just had a thought, too, Crawfish, you say that 40 is a significant and thus symbolic number in Hebrew/Israel (can't remember what you actually said), but if that is true now, isn't it likely that it didn't used to be? Symbolic things in cultures change over time and this would have had thousands of years to change. Also, what if 40 is considered important/symbolic now because of the multiple occasions it shows up in the Old Testament, but wasn't significant when it was originally written? Maybe it worked out that all of these things lasted 40 years and thus it started to take on a special meaning to the people and is now a symbolic number.

GRD, the truth is that these accounts were written decades, hundreds, and in some cases over a thousand years after the events in question. The accounts themselves were passed down via oral tradition. Thus, it is very likely that the authors of the first written version did not even know the specific amount of time; they used the symbolic numbers instead. I believe it's very possible that they used literal numbers where available. It's no coincidence that the numbers/dates/history after Hezekiah are considered far more accurate than accounts many years after; it's because they were writing from personal experience rather than oral tradition. The important details would not be lost, but the extraneous ones would be dealt with symbolically.

[Studyin'2Show]

GRD, the truth is that these accounts were written decades, hundreds, and in some cases over a thousand years after the events in question. The accounts themselves were passed down via oral tradition. Thus, it is very likely that the authors of the first written version did not even know the specific amount of time; they used the symbolic numbers instead. I believe it's very possible that they used literal numbers where available. It's no coincidence that the numbers/dates/history after Hezekiah are considered far more accurate than accounts many years after; it's because they were writing from personal experience rather than oral tradition. The important details would not be lost, but the extraneous ones would be dealt with symbolically.In the case of the kings, these events were chronicled, not as oral traditions. They kept records of what things were happening. Btw, how do numbers become symbolic? I believe GitRDunn makes a very good point that the numbers became symbolic BECAUSE the repition was seen.

[crawfish]

In the case of the kings, these events were chronicled, not as oral traditions. They kept records of what things were happening. Btw, how do numbers become symbolic? I believe GitRDunn makes a very good point that the numbers became symbolic BECAUSE the repition was seen.

Quite a coincidence, then. :)

Strong's Concordance reports that the word 40 appears 158 times in the bible. Even more compelling is the types of events marked by a time period of 40:


The Flood rain was forty days.
After landing on the mountaintop, Noah waited forty days to open the windows in the Ark.
Moses was on the mountain for forty days.
The Hebrews walked the desert for forty years
They search out the Promised Land for forty days
Isaac was forty when he married Rebekah.
Twice, Judges gave peace for forty years.
One occasion, war for forty years.
One Judge had forty sons…poor wife.
Saul ruled for forty years.
David ruled for forty years.
Solomon ruled for forty years.
Joash ruled for forty years.
Prophecy said Egypt would be barren for forty years.
Elijah was in the desert for forty days.
Jesus walked the desert for forty days.
Joseph walked Nineveh for forty days.
Jesus was said to appear to his followers for forty days after his resurrection from the dead.

All of the events have a remarkably similar purpose - a period of trial and cleansing. After a while, the pattern should begin to speak for itself.

[Studyin'2Show]

Yes, it should! And I believe we figured it out. I don't believe they arbitrarily picked 40 as a number that meant trial or cleansing and then went back and plugged it in where they thought it applied. As GitRDunn said, it makes much more sense that they saw as we have the pattern and that is WHY the number now is seen to hold significance. A chronicle IS a historical record, not merely used poetically. The text says that Adam lived for 130 years and had Seth and then lived for 800 years, had other sons and daughters and died at 930 years. I have no reason to question the validity of that, historically.

[crawfish]

Yes, it should! And I believe we figured it out. I don't believe they arbitrarily picked 40 as a number that meant trial or cleansing and then went back and plugged it in where they thought it applied. As GitRDunn said, it makes much more sense that they saw as we have the pattern and that is WHY the number now is seen to hold significance. A chronicle IS a historical record, not merely used poetically. The text says that Adam lived for 130 years and had Seth and then lived for 800 years, had other sons and daughters and died at 930 years. I have no reason to question the validity of that, historically.

Then you probably shouldn't. Personally, I see plenty of reason to. Of course, I also see plainly a poetic structure to Genesis 1 that some don't see at all. :)

In the end, I read from historians of ancient Israel and the surrounding areas who are used to reading the symbolic into the writings of the time. It signifies that their culture "thought" differently than ours. I see no reason to force a literal interpretation of such numbers, although some numbers may have been intended to be literal.

I suppose it's a difference in our mindsets; you choose to accept any scripture as literal if you have no compelling reason to think otherwise, I choose to leave it open to a symbolic interpretation if there is evidence it could be.

[Studyin'2Show]

In the end, I read from historians of ancient Israel and the surrounding areas who are used to reading the symbolic into the writings of the time. It signifies that their culture "thought" differently than ours.That was sort of the point of this thread. :confused I'm trying to find out WHAT. You say that historians of ancient Israel read it symbolically somehow but I'm asking HOW. :hmm: It's not fair to say the numbers in Genesis 5 are symbolic and not to share the symbolism. I am truly attempting to understand what makes you look at that particular text that IS very specific and see something other than what is there. Do you see something there or do you just write it off as more than you can understand?

[crawfish]

That was sort of the point of this thread. :confused I'm trying to find out WHAT. You say that historians of ancient Israel read it symbolically somehow but I'm asking HOW. :hmm: It's not fair to say the numbers in Genesis 5 are symbolic and not to share the symbolism. I am truly attempting to understand what makes you look at that particular text that IS very specific and see something other than what is there. Do you see something there or do you just write it off as more than you can understand?

As I said before, on that text I have no idea. But the fact that I am pretty certain that two scriptural ages - that of Joseph and Moses - are symbolic, it opens the door to others being symbolic as well, with keys to those symbols yet undiscovered.

Here is some interesting (and involved) reading on the subject. (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3054) It probably shows why I'm not sold on any particular symbolic system, as it is anything but definitive. The best explanation from a symbolic standpoint is that each age can be arrived using ancient Babylonian sexagesimal algebra, except for three (777, 365 and 110, each of which have solid alternative explanations). However, I've never heard why such a complicated system would be used to symbolically represent the patriarchs - why would it, itself, be symbolic? Any why wouldn't the algebraic equations be consistent?

As you can see, I'm pretty adept at ripping apart even theories that agree with my preferred view, if I don't find them compelling. :)

In the end, I choose to put my faith behind the message and meaning of the Genesis account, but not its literalness. The core message of the text remains unchanged regardless of its literalness.

[Studyin'2Show]

I moved a few posts over to a separate thread because I had taken things too far off topic. :blushhap: They can be found in this thread http://bibleforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=147037 to discuss the significance of Satan causing Eve to doubt the word of God. ;) Here's the snip of the one post that did relate to the topic here:

**snip**
Thanks for the link, Unfortunately you were right. It is extremely weak. Sort of like a long walk to nowhere. :dunno: I guess the answer to my original question from your pov is that the people and the numbers are not meant to be accurate so it doesn't matter. I'm still looking for someone to chime in who believes they are accurate but still doesn't accept them as an accurate timeline from Adam to Isaac. I'd like to understand the logic behind that viewpoint.

God Bless!

[Veretax]

Its an interesting discussion. I tend to take the dates as literal. The only place I see where days or years can be interpreted perhaps symboliclly would be in specific passages such as in Prophecy. I seem to recall that Jeremiah I think it was had to write to dispel some falsehood about the duration of the captivity of the jews. I can't recall the time off the top of my head, but I would use that as an example to be careful about misreading the texts.