[_ Old Earth _] Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[dad]

"As Free said, the references in the Bible cannot be used as a strict chronological map of the existence of the Universe. They are not strictly related to each other in an order which can be precisely defined... you are right, there is some room for interpretation, but your interpretation is dramatically erroneous. The Bible does many things but it does not provide a chronological road-map for the existence of the Earth. You would like it to be so, but the reality is just not as such."

It is precise enough for a YEC date. That is all that counts.
Since you can't dispute that, I am not sure why you bothered posting? I win.

 

[Orion]

Hey dad, . . . and anyone else interested in answering, . . . . how old was Adam when he died. . . . . . .

Now, how old was Adam when he started TRACKING that time? :-? Now follow where I'm going here. . . . . . If you knew you lived forever, what would it matter how old you were? In fact, age would be meaningless as it only determines start to end of a person's life. If you lived forever, you would have no thoughts of "how old am I today", would you?

Who's to say that, before "the fall", no one kept record of their age, and literally millions of years could have passed until the fall, . . . which on that day, man started dying, . . . .they would know that, thus would begin tracking their age from that point on!

Just a thought.

If Adam was as ageless as the Angels (before the fall), . . . . . . how old would Michael (the arch angel) be? See, that question makes no sense because age isn't a characteristic of angels.

Edited to add: People of FSTDT.com, please don't put my quote on your site. It's not like I actually believe all of what I said, but it's just a "food for thought" kind of thing for the more radically fundamentalist Christians. :wink:

 

[dad]

Hey dad, . . . and anyone else interested in answering, . . . . how old was Adam when he died. . . . . . .

I'd go with the bible times given, and not include years he appeared to be at formation.

Now, how old was Adam when he started TRACKING that time? :-? Now follow where I'm going here. . . . . . If you knew you lived forever, what would it matter how old you were? In fact, age would be meaningless as it only determines start to end of a person's life. If you lived forever, you would have no thoughts of "how old am I today", would you?

No, but since the fall, the forever deal was suspended, and the death deal kicked in. That took 930 years, or whatever the bible says.

Who's to say that, before "the fall", no one kept record of their age, and literally millions of years could have passed until the fall, . . . which on that day, man started dying, . . . .they would know that, thus would begin tracking their age from that point on!

Just a thought.

For that matter, who is to say that God created plants by creating the seeds, and simply planting them? Or, that He formed a little pile of dirt, and Adam sprung into a full grown man real fast?? For other reasons, millions of years are not possible.

If Adam was as ageless as the Angels (before the fall), . . . . . . how old would Michael (the arch angel) be? See, that question makes no sense because age isn't a characteristic of angels.

Michael is as old as the time since he was created.

Edited to add: People of FSTDT.com, please don't put my quote on your site. It's not like I actually believe all of what I said, but it's just a "food for thought" kind of thing for the more radically fundamentalist Christians. :wink:

FSDT I couldn't care less if you quote me, long as it is accurate, I don't read your stuff anyhow.

 

[love2live]

"As Free said, the references in the Bible cannot be used as a strict chronological map of the existence of the Universe. They are not strictly related to each other in an order which can be precisely defined... you are right, there is some room for interpretation, but your interpretation is dramatically erroneous. The Bible does many things but it does not provide a chronological road-map for the existence of the Earth. You would like it to be so, but the reality is just not as such."

It is precise enough for a YEC date. That is all that counts.
Since you can't dispute that, I am not sure why you bothered posting? I win.

"Some theologians have pointed out that there may be missing generations in Bible chronologies. The entire family tree may not be fully listed. Some "sons" are actually grandsons. "In Exodus 6:16-20, we find only four generations listed between Levi and Moses. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: 'It seems quite clear that some generations were omitted in the compilation' (rev. ed., s.v. 'Genealogy'). In Matthew 1:1-17, the Gospel writer deliberately omits three kings to illustrate the theological point he is making, a point that depends upon a generational pattern.""

It gets even better:

Another important difference between ancient and modern genealogies is vocabulary. In modern English, we have a whole host of words to describe precise familial relationships. For example, we have son, grandson, uncle, father, cousin, brother, and ancestor. Hebrew has a very small vocabulary, so only a few Hebrew words to carry all of these modern meanings. For example, the Hebrew words for “son†(ben, 1121) means son, grandson, great grandson, and descendent. Similarly, “father†(ab, 1)[5] means father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and ancestor. We find in Genesis 28:13 that God tells Jacob, “I am the L ORD, the God of your father (ab) Abraham and the God of Isaac,†but Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. Similarly, father (ab) can refer to multiple ancestors as in when Elijah cried, “Take my life, I am no better than my ancestors (ab)†(1 Kings 19:4). According to Vine’s, ab “may refer to the first man, a ‘forefather,’ a clan (Jeremiah 35:6), a tribe (Joshua 19:47), a group with a special calling (1 Chronicles 24:19), a dynasty (1 Kings 15:3), or a nation (Joshua 24:3). Thus ‘father’ does not necessarily mean the man who directly sired a given individual†(Vine’s “father,†but see also HGKSB, p. 1574). Similar word usage also applies to the New Testament in Greek, such as the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.

The word “begat†(yalad, 3205) is another word that is commonly used in Biblical genealogies. (The NIV translates yalad as “became the father of†or “gave birth to.â€Â) Like father (ab) and son (ben), this word has a much broader meaning than the corresponding English usage (Vine’s, “to bearâ€Â). An example of this broader usage is found in Deuteronomy 32:18, where God reminds Israel that He “begat†them. And similarly in Numbers 11:12, where Moses declares that he hadn’t “begotten†Israel and hence was not responsible for them.

Numerous examples of the broad use of genealogical terms can be given from scripture but a few clear examples are given here.

1. Daniel 5
Belshazzar is described as the “son†of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:22) and likewise Nebuchadnezzar is called his “father†(Daniel 5:2, 11, 18). However, Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and hence not even biologically related to Nebuchadnezzar. So, Belshazzar was “son†in the sense of legal heir of Nebuchadnezzar.
2. Ruth 4:17
At the end of the book of Ruth, Boaz and Ruth have their first son, Obed (Ruth 4:13, 17). In verse 4:17, the people declare, “there is a son born to Naomi.†Clearly, Naomi was not the actual mother of Obed but is the mother-in-law of Ruth who is the actual mother of Obed. Naomi’s husband, Elimelech, and her two sons died leaving Elimelech and Naomi without heirs. Boaz married Ruth in fulfillment of the Levirate law, which was enacted to ensure sons to continue the family line (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). The first son of a Levirate marriage was legally the son of the dead husband. In this case, since Ruth’s father-in-law, Elimelech, was also dead, Obed was also legally the son of Elimelech and Naomi. So, Obed was the legal son of Naomi but the biological son of Ruth.
3. Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27
In both Matthew and Luke, Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Shealtiel. (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai 1:1, 12; 2:2 also say the same thing.) In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19 we find that Zerubbabel was actually the son of Shealtiel’s brother, Pedaiah. While it is not stated in the Bible, it is reasonable to assume that Pedaiah died early and that his uncle, Shealtiel, adopted Zerubbabel. So, Pedaiah was the biological father of Zerubbabel but Shealtiel was his legal (adoptive) father.[6]
4. 1 Chronicles 1:36
This verse lists the sons of Eliphaz, the son of Esau. In the Hebrew text, seven names are listed without comment or connecting words, so it would be easy to assume that all seven people are the male children of Eliphaz. By comparing these names with Genesis 36:11-12, we see that the sixth name, Timna, was actually the concubine of Eliphaz and the seventh name, Amalek, was the son of Eliphaz by Timna. The Chronicler omitted this distinction for brevity since the readers would have been familiar with the listing in Genesis. The NIV inserts the word “by†in front of Timna and sets it apart from the preceding five names to make this clear to modern readers.
5. Genesis 48:1-6
Shortly before Jacob (Israel) died, he adopted both of Joseph’s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, as his own sons. Jacob told Joseph, “your two sons … will be reckoned as mine†(Genesis 48:5 NIV). So both Manasseh and Ephraim were the biological sons of Joseph but were legally considered sons of Jacob. (This becomes significant later, when the Levites are set apart from the other tribes for priestly service. Joseph’s tribe was then split into two tribes, one for each son, to make up for the absence of the Levites and bringing the number of tribes back to 12.)

Telescoping of Genealogies

When names are intentionally left out of a genealogy, it is referred to as “telescoping.†In a telescoped genealogy only the highlights are given, usually the names of the most important and relevant people. As an example, if we were to telescope “Abraham was the father of Isaac, who was the father of Jacob,†it might read in Hebrew, “Abraham was the father (ab) of Jacob†(e.g. Genesis 28:13). In English, this telescoped genealogy would be considered erroneous and should read “grandfather†instead. In Hebrew (and similarly for Greek), this telescoped genealogy would be perfectly true and acceptable because there is no separate word for grandfather in Hebrew and the word “father†(ab) includes the meaning grandfather.

Typically when a genealogy is telescoped, the number of names is reduced to an aesthetically pleasing number, usually a multiple of either 7 or 10 and less important names are omitted until that number is reached. For example, the genealogy of Genesis 4:17-18 contains 7 names. The genealogies in Genesis 5:3-32; 11:10-26; and Ruth 4:18-22 all have 10 names each. The genealogy of the nations (Genesis 10:2-29; 1 Chronicles 1:5-23) contains 70 names. Matthew arranged his genealogy (Matthew 1:2-17) into 3 groups of 14 names each. There are 14 names from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, and 14 from the exile to Jesus Christ. To get the groups of 14, Matthew omitted at least 4 names (see below) and counted Jeconiah’s name twice. (See Matthew’s Genealogy on page 16.) Matthew clearly indicates in his gospel that that arrangement was intentional (Matthew 1:17). Whereas Matthew’s genealogy is broken into sections, Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23-28) is given as a single list. Luke has 14 names from Abraham to David, 21 from David to the exile, and 21 from the exile to Jesus Christ (in contrast to Matthew’s 14 names each). Luke also has an additional 21 names from Abraham back to Adam. (See Luke’s Genealogy on page 17.)[7]

While modern genealogies are generally intended to be complete, most Biblical genealogies are telescoped. So, while Biblical genealogies are generally not complete, they are still historically accurate. They correctly communicate everything that we need to know (ancestry) but not necessarily everything we want to know (absolute genealogical relationships). It is often very difficult or even impossible to know with certainty whether or not a given genealogy is telescoped. The genealogies themselves give little or no indication of whether or not they are telescoped. So the only way to establish the completeness of a genealogy is to compare it with other Biblical genealogies or against history. Such study is difficult, painstaking, and is often inconclusive. Below are listed a few well-known examples where can definitively say that they are telescoped.

1. Matthew 1:8 compared to 2 Chronicles 21:4-26:23
Matthew 1:8 has Jehoram listed as the father of Uzziah but there were several generations between these men. The names Ahaziah (2 Chronicles 22:1), Joash (2 Chronicles 22:11), and Amaziah (2 Chronicles 24:27) come between Jehoram and Uzziah. (See Matthew’s Genealogy on page 16.)
2. Matthew 1:11 compared to 2 Chronicles 36:1-9
In Matthew 1:11 we read that Josiah is the father of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). In 2 Chronicles, we see that Josiah is the father of Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:4) and grandfather of Jehoiachin (2 Chronicles 36:8). (See Matthew’s Genealogy on page 16.)
3. Luke 3:35-36 compared to Genesis 10:24, 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:24
Luke contains the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad that is missing in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12 and 1 Chronicles 1:24.[8] Since all of the genealogies are true and Luke is the one with more names, then Luke must be more complete and the more rest telescoped. (See Luke’s Genealogy on page 17.) A more detailed discussion of these genealogies is given in the section on the Genesis genealogies.
4. Ezra 7:1-5 compared to 1 Chronicles 6:3-15
The genealogy of 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 lists the descendents of Aaron down to Jehozadak (Jozadak). Ezra 7 lists Ezra’s own genealogy going back to Aaron. Where the two genealogies overlap, 1 Chronicles contains 22 names and Ezra contains 16 names, making Ezra’s genealogy no more than 70% complete.[9] (See Priestly Lineage on page 18.) Both genealogies span a time period of about 860 years from the exodus to the fall of Jerusalem, which suggests that both genealogies are in fact highly telescoped. A thorough search of the Old Testament reveals that there were many high priests during this time period who are not included in either of these two genealogies, which provides additional evidence that these genealogies are not complete. The following high priests are known from the OT but are not included in these genealogies: Jehoiada (2 Kings 12:2), Uriah (2 Kings 16:10-16), possibly two Azariahs (2 Chronicles 26:17, 20; 31:10-31), Eli (1 Samuel 1:9; 14:3) and Abiathar (2 Samuel 8:17).[10]
5. 1 Samuel 16:10-13 compared to 1 Chronicles 2:13-15
In the 1 Samuel passage, the prophet Samuel goes to Jesse to anoint one of his sons as the new king of Israel. Jesse has his seven eldest sons pass before Samuel but each is rejected. Finally, David, the 8th son is brought in and is anointed by Samuel as king. We find in 1 Chronicles, however, that David is listed as the 7th son of Jesse. One of David’s brothers is omitted from the list to allow David to occupy the favored 7th position. This may seem a bit odd to modern readers but this was an accepted genealogical practice

Estimating the Degree of Telescoping

Based on the above discussion and Biblical examples, we can see that the telescoping of genealogies was a fairly common practice in ancient times. Such telescoping is perfectly acceptable and literal (based on Hebrew word usage)â€â€even if it may be disconcerting to modern readers. We can also see that it is usually impossible to tell from the genealogy itself whether or not it is complete. For a few genealogies, we can establish specific names that have been omitted and where they belong in the list. In general, however, the genealogy only establishes a minimum limit to the number of generations spanned. We have to look at other portions of scripture or history to estimate the degree of telescoping involved. While the degree of telescoping in a particular genealogy may be uncertain, it is certainly not arbitrary or unlimited. Upper limits on how far a genealogy might be pushed can be reasonably estimated by looking at Biblical examples for which we can establish the time span involved. Conservative Bible scholars estimate that genealogies are generally not less than 10% complete (i.e. including only 1 name in 10) based on such analysis.

1. Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chronicles 2:5-15; Matthew 1:3-6; and Luke 3:31-33
The genealogy of David given in the book of Ruth lists 10 names from Perez to David. The remaining 3 genealogies repeat these 10 names but also include Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah as the ancestors of Perez to round out the genealogy to 14 names. The time between Abraham and David spans more than 1,000 years. This time span is too long for the genealogy to be complete. One can estimate that the genealogy is about 20 to 50% complete.
2. Heman, Asaph, and Ethan - 1 Chronicles 6:33-47
At the time of David, there were three head temple musicians, one from each of the 3 divisions of the Levites. There is Heman of the Kohathite division (verses 33-38), Asaph of the Gershonite division (verses 39-42), and Ethan of the Merarite division (verses 44-47). In each case, the genealogies start with Levi, who was the father of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari and ancestor of these three men. So, we have three genealogies side-by-side extending from Levi to the time of King David, yet the genealogies contain 21, 15, and 14 names respectively for exactly the same span of time. This suggests that at least the latter two genealogies are highly telescoped. (See Head Temple Musicians on page 19.)
3. Jeriah (Jerijah) – 1 Chronicles 23:6, 12, 19; 26:31
Jeriah (or Jerijah) was the head of the Hebronites (a Levitical clan) and put in charge of other men by King David. His genealogy is telescoped to only mention his tribe (Levite), division (Kohathite), and clan (Hebronite). This four name genealogy covers the same approximately 900-year of history as that of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan (see previous point and see Head Temple Musicians on page 19). Since the other three genealogies contain 14 to 21 generations for this same time span, we can only conclude that this genealogy is no more than 15% complete.
4. Shebuel (Shubael) – 1 Chronicles 23:15-16; 26:24
Shebuel (or Shubael) was put in charge of the treasury in the time of King David. Both of these genealogies have Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses. Both Moses and Gershom lived during the time of the exodus while Shebuel lived in the time of King David, some 400 to 500 years later. This is highly telescoped and was only for the purpose of identifying his ancestry from Moses and Gershom.
5. Ezra 8:1-2
In this verse, Ezra lists a number of leading men of his time period according to ancestry. So Gershom was the son of Phinehas (who was the grandson of Aaron); Daniel was the son of Ithamar (who was the son of Aaron); and Hattush was the son of David. The first two examples span approximately 1,000 years of time, and the third spans about 500 years. Clearly, these genealogies are highly telescoped!
Source: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... gies.shtml
http://www.answersincreation.org/rebutt ... logies.htm

 

[love2live]

Each of the Mosaic genealogies lists the same four generations (Levi to Kohath to Amram to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam). By cross-referencing with other scripture verses, we can clearly establish that these genealogies are telescoped. We know that both Levi and his son, Kohath, entered Egypt (Genesis 46:5-27; Exodus 1:1-4), which was 430 years before the Exodus (Exodus 12:40-41; Acts 7:6). Since Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 7:7), from Kohath to Amram to Moses spans at least 350 years!!! A typical generation is 20 to 40 years, so one would expect that these genealogies to span between 10 and 20 generations. We find in 1 Chronicles 7:20-27 the genealogy of Ephraim, son of Joseph, which covers the same period of history as the Mosaic genealogies. Joseph (brother of Levi) and his son Ephraim were alive when the Israelites settled in Egypt (Genesis 41:52; 46:27). There are 12 generations listed from Joseph to Joshua. Since Joshua was alive at the time of the exodus and was a contemporary of Moses, these 12 generations span the 430-year stay in Egypt. This would fit nicely with a generation being about 40 years. Thus, this genealogy gives (at least) 12 generations that correspond to the same time period as the 4 generations of the Mosaic genealogies. (See The Genealogies of Moses and Joshua on page 18.) Yet, another evidence for telescoping is that Kohath’s descendents at the time of Moses numbered 8,600 men (Numbers 3:27, 28) of whom 2,750 were between the age of 30 and 50 (Numbers 4:36). This number of descendents is inexplicable if this genealogy is not telescoped and Kohath was Moses’ was grandfather. Based on these arguments, we can conclude that the Mosaic genealogies are perhaps only 20 to 40% complete.

Was Amram the immediate father of Moses and Aaron, or was he their ancestor? A number of evidences show there were quite a few generations separating Amram and Moses.[11] (a) Kohath to Amram to Moses spans 350 years (as discussed above) and hence requires unnamed generations. (b) Amram and his wife, Jochebed, are mentioned in Exodus 6 as giving rise to Moses. Yet in the account of Exodus 2, the names of Moses parents are conspicuously absent. [They are instead referred to as “a man of the house of Levi†(vs. 2:1), “a Levite woman†(vs. 2:1), and “the baby’s mother†(vs. 2:8).] (c) Descendents of Amram are given in 1 Chronicles 24:20 but don’t mention Aaron, Moses, and Miriam neither does the Exodus account mention additional brothers for Moses. (d) Jochebed, Amram’s wife, is referred to as the daughter of Levi (Numbers 26:59) and Amram’s father’s sister (Exodus 6:20), which would place Jochebed at the entrance of the Israelites into Egypt. Thus, she would have to be at least 350 years old when she gave birth to Moses if there were no gaps in the Mosaic genealogies! Based on this evidence, we recognize that many generations separate Amram and Jochebed and their children, Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. In Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59, Jochebed is said to “bear†(“begat,†yalad) them while in 1 Chronicles 6:3 and 23:13 describes them as “sons†(ben). Thus, both son (ben) and “begat†(yalad) are used synonymously here to refer to a distant descendent in a genealogy.

In conclusion, we find that the Mosaic genealogies are highly telescoped (perhaps 20 to 40% complete). Only the critical namesâ€â€those corresponding to his tribe (Levi), division (Kohath), and clan (Amram)â€â€are given, and the remaining names between Amram and Moses are ignored. Both the term “son†(ben) and “begat†(yalad) are applied interchangeably to the relationship between Amram and Moses, yet at least 8 generations separate the two men (i.e. ben and yalad are being used to mean ancestor rather than the immediate son). This genealogy is highly telescoped yet the genealogy itself does not tell us if it is complete or where the gaps are. Only by cross-referencing other Scripture verses or looking at historical sources were we able to determine whether or not it was telescoped.
Source:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... gies.shtml

 

[dad]

"Some theologians have pointed out that there may be missing generations in Bible chronologies. The entire family tree may not be fully listed. Some "sons" are actually grandsons. "In Exodus 6:16-20, we find only four generations listed between Levi and Moses. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: 'It seems quite clear that some generations were omitted in the compilation' (rev. ed., s.v. 'Genealogy'). In Matthew 1:1-17, the Gospel writer deliberately omits three kings to illustrate the theological point he is making, a point that depends upon a generational pattern.""

Comparing scripture with scripture seems to smooth out those sort of bumps. For example, is the ones not mentioned in Matt, not mentioned anywhere in the bible!!? Matt, was not a time line, but a Messiah line, or part thereof.

It gets even better:

Another important difference between ancient and modern genealogies is vocabulary. In modern English, we have a whole host of words to describe precise familial relationships. For example, we have son, grandson, uncle, father, cousin, brother, and ancestor. Hebrew has a very small vocabulary, so only a few Hebrew words to carry all of these modern meanings. For example, the Hebrew words for “son†(ben, 1121) means son, grandson, great grandson, and descendent. Similarly, “father†(ab, 1)[5] means father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and ancestor. We find in Genesis 28:13 that God tells Jacob, “I am the L ORD, the God of your father (ab) Abraham and the God of Isaac,†but Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. Similarly, father (ab) can refer to multiple ancestors as in when Elijah cried, “Take my life, I am no better than my ancestors (ab)†(1 Kings 19:4). According to Vine’s, ab “may refer to the first man, a ‘forefather,’ a clan (Jeremiah 35:6), a tribe (Joshua 19:47), a group with a special calling (1 Chronicles 24:19), a dynasty (1 Kings 15:3), or a nation (Joshua 24:3). Thus ‘father’ does not necessarily mean the man who directly sired a given individual†(Vine’s “father,†but see also HGKSB, p. 1574). Similar word usage also applies to the New Testament in Greek, such as the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.

One reason why some understanding is needed to get these things. For example, one line might be from Mary's side, another line from Jesus, so we need to apply the right context. So???

The word “begat†(yalad, 3205) is another word that is commonly used in Biblical genealogies. (The NIV translates yalad as “became the father of†or “gave birth to.â€Â) Like father (ab) and son (ben), this word has a much broader meaning than the corresponding English usage (Vine’s, “to bearâ€Â). An example of this broader usage is found in Deuteronomy 32:18, where God reminds Israel that He “begat†them. And similarly in Numbers 11:12, where Moses declares that he hadn’t “begotten†Israel and hence was not responsible for them.

God begat one way, man another.

Numerous examples of the broad use of genealogical terms can be given from scripture but a few clear examples are given here.

Doesn't affect the time from Adam to the flood, now, does it?

While modern genealogies are generally intended to be complete, most Biblical genealogies are telescoped. So, while Biblical genealogies are generally not complete, they are still historically accurate. They correctly communicate everything that we need to know (ancestry) but not necessarily everything we want to know (absolute genealogical relationships). It is often very difficult or even impossible to know with certainty whether or not a given genealogy is telescoped. The genealogies themselves give little or no indication of whether or not they are telescoped. So the only way to establish the completeness of a genealogy is to compare it with other Biblical genealogies or against history. Such study is difficult, painstaking, and is often inconclusive. Below are listed a few well-known examples where can definitively say that they are telescoped.

It is not really so hard, some have tackled that task. The results are not that different. How would this help your case any??

1. Matthew 1:8 compared to 2 Chronicles 21:4-26:23
Matthew 1:8 has Jehoram listed as the father of Uzziah but there were several generations between these men. The names Ahaziah (2 Chronicles 22:1), Joash (2 Chronicles 22:11), and Amaziah (2 Chronicles 24:27) come between Jehoram and Uzziah. (See Matthew’s Genealogy on page 16.)

"In Ezra 7:3, Azariah is called the son of Meraioth, although it is evident, from 1 Chronicles 6:7-9, that there were six descendants between them. This circumstance the evangelist was probably aware of; but did not see it proper to attempt to correct what he found in the public accredited genealogical tables; as he knew it to be of no consequence to his argument, which was merely to show that Jesus Christ as surely descended, in an uninterrupted line from David, as David did from Abraham."
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... se=8#Mt1_8

3. Luke 3:35-36 compared to Genesis 10:24, 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:24
Luke contains the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad that is missing in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12 and 1 Chronicles 1:24.[8] Since all of the genealogies are true and Luke is the one with more names, then Luke must be more complete and the more rest telescoped. (See Luke’s Genealogy on page 17.) A more detailed discussion of these genealogies is given in the section on the Genesis genealogies.

That is an interesting bit. I looked at this a few years ago, but forget the best explanation. Now, one was from the Septuagint, if I recall, and the other from the hebrew. I go with the hebrew. If we were looking at the line from Mary, I wonder if mentioning someone else might be warranted? For example, if there were twins, normally, the eldest is the one that the line is counted from. If say, something like the twin was the father of Mary, maybe he would deserve a mentch in Luke?? Etc.

4. Ezra 7:1-5 compared to 1 Chronicles 6:3-15
The genealogy of 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 lists the descendents of Aaron down to Jehozadak (Jozadak). Ezra 7 lists Ezra’s own genealogy going back to Aaron. Where the two genealogies overlap, 1 Chronicles contains 22 names and Ezra contains 16 names, making Ezra’s genealogy no more than 70% complete.[9] (See Priestly Lineage on page 18.) Both genealogies span a time period of about 860 years from the exodus to the fall of Jerusalem, which suggests that both genealogies are in fact highly telescoped. A thorough search of the Old Testament reveals that there were many high priests during this time period who are not included in either of these two genealogies, which provides additional evidence that these genealogies are not complete. The following high priests are known from the OT but are not included in these genealogies: Jehoiada (2 Kings 12:2), Uriah (2 Kings 16:10-16), possibly two Azariahs (2 Chronicles 26:17, 20; 31:10-31), Eli (1 Samuel 1:9; 14:3) and Abiathar (2 Samuel 8:17).[10]

"Ezra must now be at least one hundred and twenty-two years of age, supposing him to have been born in the year of his father's death; if, indeed Seraiah the high priest was his father; but this is evidently impossible. In this place there are only sixteen generations reckoned between Ezra and Aaron, but in 1 Chronicles 6:3,4, twenty-two. We must therefore supply the deficient generations from the above place, between Amariah son of Meraioth, 1 Chronicles 6:7, and Azariah the son of Johanan, 1 Chronicles 6:10. "
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... e=1#Ezr7_1
--This wasn't meant to be a history of the world.

5. 1 Samuel 16:10-13 compared to 1 Chronicles 2:13-15
In the 1 Samuel passage, the prophet Samuel goes to Jesse to anoint one of his sons as the new king of Israel. Jesse has his seven eldest sons pass before Samuel but each is rejected. Finally, David, the 8th son is brought in and is anointed by Samuel as king. We find in 1 Chronicles, however, that David is listed as the 7th son of Jesse. One of David’s brothers is omitted from the list to allow David to occupy the favored 7th position. This may seem a bit odd to modern readers but this was an accepted genealogical practice

So??

While the degree of telescoping in a particular genealogy may be uncertain, it is certainly not arbitrary or unlimited. Upper limits on how far a genealogy might be pushed can be reasonably estimated by looking at Biblical examples for which we can establish the time span involved. Conservative Bible scholars estimate that genealogies are generally not less than 10% complete (i.e. including only 1 name in 10) based on such analysis.

Whoopee do!!?? So??

1. Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chronicles 2:5-15; Matthew 1:3-6; and Luke 3:31-33
The genealogy of David given in the book of Ruth lists 10 names from Perez to David. The remaining 3 genealogies repeat these 10 names but also include Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah as the ancestors of Perez to round out the genealogy to 14 names. The time between Abraham and David spans more than 1,000 years. This time span is too long for the genealogy to be complete. One can estimate that the genealogy is about 20 to 50% complete.

Some lines also included earlier bible greats. So?

Jeriah (or Jerijah) was the head of the Hebronites (a Levitical clan) and put in charge of other men by King David. His genealogy is telescoped to only mention his tribe (Levite), division (Kohathite), and clan (Hebronite). This four name genealogy covers the same approximately 900-year of history as that of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan (see previous point and see Head Temple Musicians on page 19). Since the other three genealogies contain 14 to 21 generations for this same time span, we can only conclude that this genealogy is no more than 15% complete.

Well, if it is just something concerning these men, there is a reason it is not some precise history of the universe. Keep things in perspective. The line from Adam is nothing like that. It is given, face it, within a samll margin of possible interpretation. That is meaningless, because all we need is some inspired man to interpret it right. I think we been there done that.

So, a bible line NEED not be concise for dates, except where it is important, and designed to be so. That leaves Adam, & co. It is. I win.

 

[dad]

Each of the Mosaic genealogies lists the same four generations (Levi to Kohath to Amram to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam). By cross-referencing with other scripture verses, we can clearly establish that these genealogies are telescoped. ...

So?

















A typical generation is 20 to 40 years, so one would expect that these genealogies to span between 10 and 20 generations. We find in 1 Chronicles 7:20-27 the genealogy of Ephraim, son of Joseph, which covers the same period of history as the Mosaic genealogies. Joseph (brother of Levi) and his son Ephraim were alive when the Israelites settled in Egypt (Genesis 41:52; 46:27). There are 12 generations listed from Joseph to Joshua. Since Joshua was alive at the time of the exodus and was a contemporary of Moses, these 12 generations span the 430-year stay in Egypt. This would fit nicely with a generation being about 40 years. Thus, this genealogy gives (at least) 12 generations that correspond to the same time period as the 4 generations of the Mosaic genealogies. (See The Genealogies of Moses and Joshua on page 18.) Yet, another evidence for telescoping is that Kohath’s descendents at the time of Moses numbered 8,600 men (Numbers 3:27, 28) of whom 2,750 were between the age of 30 and 50 (Numbers 4:36). This number of descendents is inexplicable if this genealogy is not telescoped and Kohath was Moses’ was grandfather. Based on these arguments, we can conclude that the Mosaic genealogies are perhaps only 20 to 40% complete.

Was Amram the immediate father of Moses and Aaron, or was he their ancestor? A number of evidences show there were quite a few generations separating Amram and Moses.[11] (a) Kohath to Amram to Moses spans 350 years (as discussed above) and hence requires unnamed generations. (b) Amram and his wife, Jochebed, are mentioned in Exodus 6 as giving rise to Moses. Yet in the account of Exodus 2, the names of Moses parents are conspicuously absent. [They are instead referred to as “a man of the house of Levi†(vs. 2:1), “a Levite woman†(vs. 2:1), and “the baby’s mother†(vs. 2:8).] (c) Descendents of Amram are given in 1 Chronicles 24:20 but don’t mention Aaron, Moses, and Miriam neither does the Exodus account mention additional brothers for Moses. (d) Jochebed, Amram’s wife, is referred to as the daughter of Levi (Numbers 26:59) and Amram’s father’s sister (Exodus 6:20), which would place Jochebed at the entrance of the Israelites into Egypt. Thus, she would have to be at least 350 years old when she gave birth to Moses if there were no gaps in the Mosaic genealogies! Based on this evidence, we recognize that many generations separate Amram and Jochebed and their children, Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. In Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59, Jochebed is said to “bear†(“begat,†yalad) them while in 1 Chronicles 6:3 and 23:13 describes them as “sons†(ben). Thus, both son (ben) and “begat†(yalad) are used synonymously here to refer to a distant descendent in a genealogy.

In conclusion, we find that the Mosaic genealogies are highly telescoped (perhaps 20 to 40% complete). Only the critical namesâ€â€those corresponding to his tribe (Levi), division (Kohath), and clan (Amram)â€â€are given, and the remaining names between Amram and Moses are ignored. Both the term “son†(ben) and “begat†(yalad) are applied interchangeably to the relationship between Amram and Moses, yet at least 8 generations separate the two men (i.e. ben and yalad are being used to mean ancestor rather than the immediate son). This genealogy is highly telescoped yet the genealogy itself does not tell us if it is complete or where the gaps are. Only by cross-referencing other Scripture verses or looking at historical sources were we able to determine whether or not it was telescoped.
Source:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... gies.shtml[/quote]

 

[love2live]

"Some theologians have pointed out that there may be missing generations in Bible chronologies. The entire family tree may not be fully listed. Some "sons" are actually grandsons. "In Exodus 6:16-20, we find only four generations listed between Levi and Moses. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: 'It seems quite clear that some generations were omitted in the compilation' (rev. ed., s.v. 'Genealogy'). In Matthew 1:1-17, the Gospel writer deliberately omits three kings to illustrate the theological point he is making, a point that depends upon a generational pattern.""

Comparing scripture with scripture seems to smooth out those sort of bumps. For example, is the ones not mentioned in Matt, not mentioned anywhere in the bible!!? Matt, was not a time line, but a Messiah line, or part thereof.

But if you read on you will see the rest of the argument and understand that it's not just Matthew, but all across the board, including Genesis.

It gets even better:

Another important difference between ancient and modern genealogies is vocabulary. In modern English, we have a whole host of words to describe precise familial relationships. For example, we have son, grandson, uncle, father, cousin, brother, and ancestor. Hebrew has a very small vocabulary, so only a few Hebrew words to carry all of these modern meanings. For example, the Hebrew words for “son†(ben, 1121) means son, grandson, great grandson, and descendent. Similarly, “father†(ab, 1)[5] means father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and ancestor. We find in Genesis 28:13 that God tells Jacob, “I am the L ORD, the God of your father (ab) Abraham and the God of Isaac,†but Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. Similarly, father (ab) can refer to multiple ancestors as in when Elijah cried, “Take my life, I am no better than my ancestors (ab)†(1 Kings 19:4). According to Vine’s, ab “may refer to the first man, a ‘forefather,’ a clan (Jeremiah 35:6), a tribe (Joshua 19:47), a group with a special calling (1 Chronicles 24:19), a dynasty (1 Kings 15:3), or a nation (Joshua 24:3). Thus ‘father’ does not necessarily mean the man who directly sired a given individual†(Vine’s “father,†but see also HGKSB, p. 1574). Similar word usage also applies to the New Testament in Greek, such as the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.

One reason why some understanding is needed to get these things. For example, one line might be from Mary's side, another line from Jesus, so we need to apply the right context. So???

I don't think you understood what this paragraph means... and I don't think you know what you're talking about. One line might be from Mary's side the other from Jesus? Jesus is the son of Mary, what are you talking about?

The word “begat†(yalad, 3205) is another word that is commonly used in Biblical genealogies. (The NIV translates yalad as “became the father of†or “gave birth to.â€Â) Like father (ab) and son (ben), this word has a much broader meaning than the corresponding English usage (Vine’s, “to bearâ€Â). An example of this broader usage is found in Deuteronomy 32:18, where God reminds Israel that He “begat†them. And similarly in Numbers 11:12, where Moses declares that he hadn’t “begotten†Israel and hence was not responsible for them.

God begat one way, man another.

OMG, what is wrong with you? You missed the point again! LOL, read it and then post!

Numerous examples of the broad use of genealogical terms can be given from scripture but a few clear examples are given here.

Doesn't affect the time from Adam to the flood, now, does it?

LOL AHHAHAHAHAHA! What can I tell you? Maybe you should read it and find out!

While modern genealogies are generally intended to be complete, most Biblical genealogies are telescoped. So, while Biblical genealogies are generally not complete, they are still historically accurate. They correctly communicate everything that we need to know (ancestry) but not necessarily everything we want to know (absolute genealogical relationships). It is often very difficult or even impossible to know with certainty whether or not a given genealogy is telescoped. The genealogies themselves give little or no indication of whether or not they are telescoped. So the only way to establish the completeness of a genealogy is to compare it with other Biblical genealogies or against history. Such study is difficult, painstaking, and is often inconclusive. Below are listed a few well-known examples where can definitively say that they are telescoped.

It is not really so hard, some have tackled that task. The results are not that different. How would this help your case any??

Did you read the paragraph? Yes it is a hard task, but examples are given in the next paragraph. How would it help my case? WELL if you READ, you will find out!

3. Luke 3:35-36 compared to Genesis 10:24, 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:24
Luke contains the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad that is missing in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12 and 1 Chronicles 1:24.[8] Since all of the genealogies are true and Luke is the one with more names, then Luke must be more complete and the more rest telescoped. (See Luke’s Genealogy on page 17.) A more detailed discussion of these genealogies is given in the section on the Genesis genealogies.

That is an interesting bit. I looked at this a few years ago, but forget the best explanation. Now, one was from the Septuagint, if I recall, and the other from the hebrew. I go with the hebrew. If we were looking at the line from Mary, I wonder if mentioning someone else might be warranted? For example, if there were twins, normally, the eldest is the one that the line is counted from. If say, something like the twin was the father of Mary, maybe he would deserve a mentch in Luke?? Etc.

This happens very often and it happens for MANY generations, some are not as important as other so they're just left out...

4. Ezra 7:1-5 compared to 1 Chronicles 6:3-15
The genealogy of 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 lists the descendents of Aaron down to Jehozadak (Jozadak). Ezra 7 lists Ezra’s own genealogy going back to Aaron. Where the two genealogies overlap, 1 Chronicles contains 22 names and Ezra contains 16 names, making Ezra’s genealogy no more than 70% complete.[9] (See Priestly Lineage on page 18.) Both genealogies span a time period of about 860 years from the exodus to the fall of Jerusalem, which suggests that both genealogies are in fact highly telescoped. A thorough search of the Old Testament reveals that there were many high priests during this time period who are not included in either of these two genealogies, which provides additional evidence that these genealogies are not complete. The following high priests are known from the OT but are not included in these genealogies: Jehoiada (2 Kings 12:2), Uriah (2 Kings 16:10-16), possibly two Azariahs (2 Chronicles 26:17, 20; 31:10-31), Eli (1 Samuel 1:9; 14:3) and Abiathar (2 Samuel 8:17).[10]

"Ezra must now be at least one hundred and twenty-two years of age, supposing him to have been born in the year of his father's death; if, indeed Seraiah the high priest was his father; but this is evidently impossible. In this place there are only sixteen generations reckoned between Ezra and Aaron, but in 1 Chronicles 6:3,4, twenty-two. We must therefore supply the deficient generations from the above place, between Amariah son of Meraioth, 1 Chronicles 6:7, and Azariah the son of Johanan, 1 Chronicles 6:10. "
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... e=1#Ezr7_1
--This wasn't meant to be a history of the world.

SO if it wasn't meant to be a history of the world, how can you attempt to use it to tell the age of the world?

5. 1 Samuel 16:10-13 compared to 1 Chronicles 2:13-15
In the 1 Samuel passage, the prophet Samuel goes to Jesse to anoint one of his sons as the new king of Israel. Jesse has his seven eldest sons pass before Samuel but each is rejected. Finally, David, the 8th son is brought in and is anointed by Samuel as king. We find in 1 Chronicles, however, that David is listed as the 7th son of Jesse. One of David’s brothers is omitted from the list to allow David to occupy the favored 7th position. This may seem a bit odd to modern readers but this was an accepted genealogical practice

So??

So there are seems to be a lot of people in the genealogies of the Bible that have been omitted.

While the degree of telescoping in a particular genealogy may be uncertain, it is certainly not arbitrary or unlimited. Upper limits on how far a genealogy might be pushed can be reasonably estimated by looking at Biblical examples for which we can establish the time span involved. Conservative Bible scholars estimate that genealogies are generally not less than 10% complete (i.e. including only 1 name in 10) based on such analysis.

Whoopee do!!?? So??

I see how you got through most of the bible now!

1. Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chronicles 2:5-15; Matthew 1:3-6; and Luke 3:31-33
The genealogy of David given in the book of Ruth lists 10 names from Perez to David. The remaining 3 genealogies repeat these 10 names but also include Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah as the ancestors of Perez to round out the genealogy to 14 names. The time between Abraham and David spans more than 1,000 years. This time span is too long for the genealogy to be complete. One can estimate that the genealogy is about 20 to 50% complete.

Some lines also included earlier bible greats. So?

So your attempt to use genealogies fails due to the amount of missing links... you accept the genealogies of the Bible with MANY missing links.

Jeriah (or Jerijah) was the head of the Hebronites (a Levitical clan) and put in charge of other men by King David. His genealogy is telescoped to only mention his tribe (Levite), division (Kohathite), and clan (Hebronite). This four name genealogy covers the same approximately 900-year of history as that of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan (see previous point and see Head Temple Musicians on page 19). Since the other three genealogies contain 14 to 21 generations for this same time span, we can only conclude that this genealogy is no more than 15% complete.

Well, if it is just something concerning these men, there is a reason it is not some precise history of the universe. Keep things in perspective. The line from Adam is nothing like that. It is given, face it, within a samll margin of possible interpretation. That is meaningless, because all we need is some inspired man to interpret it right. I think we been there done that.

How about you face it and understand that no matter how you look at it there are many missing links which provide for a 20% to 40% margin of error in MANY of the genealogies that you base your argument on.

So, a bible line NEED not be concise for dates, except where it is important, and designed to be so. That leaves Adam, & co. It is. I win.

AHHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH, why am I even arguing with you? You're like a broken record, just keep playing the same song over and over again. The track has been playing for so long in your head that anything else coming from the outside is considered as noise and you just ignore it!
Dad, I think I proved you wrong beyond what you can even comprehend, your lack of understanding in all of the subjects covered in this post is overshadowed by your gigantic ego. Your constant strive to "win" only proves that. Well this is not about winning or losing, this is about being logical, intelligent and it's about paying attention to all the little details and clues that the Bible has given us. If you ignore some of the details, then you end up concluding that the Earth is Young, but if you pay attention you will notice that your logic is WRONG! I win!?!?

 

[love2live]

Each of the Mosaic genealogies lists the same four generations (Levi to Kohath to Amram to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam). By cross-referencing with other scripture verses, we can clearly establish that these genealogies are telescoped. ...

So?

That's all you have to say? After a 2 page rebuttal of your theory you read all of this and all you got to say is "So?" LOL HHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
OK! I think we see where this conversation is gong! And we can clearly see how you get through most of the Bible and conclude that the Earth is Young. You read it and all you say is "So??", then you skip to the parts that you like the best! :

Did you miss the explanation?!?! See below:
A typical generation is 20 to 40 years, so one would expect that these genealogies to span between 10 and 20 generations. We find in 1 Chronicles 7:20-27 the genealogy of Ephraim, son of Joseph, which covers the same period of history as the Mosaic genealogies. Joseph (brother of Levi) and his son Ephraim were alive when the Israelites settled in Egypt (Genesis 41:52; 46:27). There are 12 generations listed from Joseph to Joshua. Since Joshua was alive at the time of the exodus and was a contemporary of Moses, these 12 generations span the 430-year stay in Egypt. This would fit nicely with a generation being about 40 years. Thus, this genealogy gives (at least) 12 generations that correspond to the same time period as the 4 generations of the Mosaic genealogies. (See The Genealogies of Moses and Joshua on page 18.) Yet, another evidence for telescoping is that Kohath’s descendents at the time of Moses numbered 8,600 men (Numbers 3:27, 28) of whom 2,750 were between the age of 30 and 50 (Numbers 4:36). This number of descendents is inexplicable if this genealogy is not telescoped and Kohath was Moses’ was grandfather. Based on these arguments, we can conclude that the Mosaic genealogies are perhaps only 20 to 40% complete.

Was Amram the immediate father of Moses and Aaron, or was he their ancestor? A number of evidences show there were quite a few generations separating Amram and Moses.[11] (a) Kohath to Amram to Moses spans 350 years (as discussed above) and hence requires unnamed generations. (b) Amram and his wife, Jochebed, are mentioned in Exodus 6 as giving rise to Moses. Yet in the account of Exodus 2, the names of Moses parents are conspicuously absent. [They are instead referred to as “a man of the house of Levi†(vs. 2:1), “a Levite woman†(vs. 2:1), and “the baby’s mother†(vs. 2:8).] (c) Descendents of Amram are given in 1 Chronicles 24:20 but don’t mention Aaron, Moses, and Miriam neither does the Exodus account mention additional brothers for Moses. (d) Jochebed, Amram’s wife, is referred to as the daughter of Levi (Numbers 26:59) and Amram’s father’s sister (Exodus 6:20), which would place Jochebed at the entrance of the Israelites into Egypt. Thus, she would have to be at least 350 years old when she gave birth to Moses if there were no gaps in the Mosaic genealogies! Based on this evidence, we recognize that many generations separate Amram and Jochebed and their children, Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. In Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59, Jochebed is said to “bear†(“begat,†yalad) them while in 1 Chronicles 6:3 and 23:13 describes them as “sons†(ben). Thus, both son (ben) and “begat†(yalad) are used synonymously here to refer to a distant descendent in a genealogy.

In conclusion, we find that the Mosaic genealogies are highly telescoped (perhaps 20 to 40% complete). Only the critical namesâ€â€those corresponding to his tribe (Levi), division (Kohath), and clan (Amram)â€â€are given, and the remaining names between Amram and Moses are ignored. Both the term “son†(ben) and “begat†(yalad) are applied interchangeably to the relationship between Amram and Moses, yet at least 8 generations separate the two men (i.e. ben and yalad are being used to mean ancestor rather than the immediate son). This genealogy is highly telescoped yet the genealogy itself does not tell us if it is complete or where the gaps are. Only by cross-referencing other Scripture verses or looking at historical sources were we able to determine whether or not it was telescoped.
Source:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... gies.shtml

 

[dad]

But if you read on you will see the rest of the argument and understand that it's not just Matthew, but all across the board, including Genesis.

Not from the Adam line, so who cares if there are reasons some precise total account was not the object of the game??? I mean, you coulld go to a verse like 'Is this not Jesu, the son of Joseph..'? And claim that leaves out 995, so the bible is not accurate. That is all you do, in a longer, boring, roundabout way.

I don't think you understood what this paragraph means... and I don't think you know what you're talking about. One line might be from Mary's side the other from Jesus? Jesus is the son of Mary, what are you talking about?

Some claim that Matt and Luke each refer to a different parent of Jesus, for example.

LOL AHHAHAHAHAHA! What can I tell you? Maybe you should read it and find out!

I have looked at the issue, and the margin of error is not big, face it. Not where it counts, and is meant to count.

This happens very often and it happens for MANY generations, some are not as important as other so they're just left out...

But what is important is in there, like the age of the earth from Adam info.

SO if it wasn't meant to be a history of the world, how can you attempt to use it to tell the age of the world?[/b][/size]

Ezra isn't where we get the lineage years from Eden, is it??

So there are seems to be a lot of people in the genealogies of the Bible that have been omitted.

Thank God for that, it is boring enough already. At least the important stuff can be found.

So your attempt to use genealogies fails due to the amount of missing links... you accept the genealogies of the Bible with MANY missing links.

They are not missing where they are not meant to be, such as the line of Adam.

How about you face it and understand that no matter how you look at it there are many missing links which provide for a 20% to 40% margin of error in MANY of the genealogies that you base your argument on.

The years are not missing in the line of Ada, Some people researched that, and their results are in, and are not that far apart. They can't be.

If you ignore some of the details, then you end up concluding that the Earth is Young, but if you pay attention you will notice that your logic is WRONG! I win!?!?

No, you can't win. Blowing smoke about a bunch of incomplete genealogical lines in the bible is ridiculous. The years from Adam are clear as a bell. You have the job of believing them or not. There is no need to tuck the bible's tail in and run from science, and cook up old ages in the bible. That is a Laodocean legend.

 

[love2live]

But if you read on you will see the rest of the argument and understand that it's not just Matthew, but all across the board, including Genesis.

Not from the Adam line, so who cares if there are reasons some precise total account was not the object of the game??? I mean, you coulld go to a verse like 'Is this not Jesu, the son of Joseph..'? And claim that leaves out 995, so the bible is not accurate. That is all you do, in a longer, boring, roundabout way.

What are you saying?! Geesh, write like a normal person. Listen, you seem not to be getting any of what I said? Why is that? If this keeps going then I don't see a point in talking to you at all.

I don't think you understood what this paragraph means... and I don't think you know what you're talking about. One line might be from Mary's side the other from Jesus? Jesus is the son of Mary, what are you talking about?

Some claim that Matt and Luke each refer to a different parent of Jesus, for example.

OK, great point! That right there proves that the earth is young..... NOOOT!

LOL AHHAHAHAHAHA! What can I tell you? Maybe you should read it and find out!

I have looked at the issue, and the margin of error is not big, face it. Not where it counts, and is meant to count.

I can see how much you look into stuff... if you payed as much attention as you're paying to the comments in this post, then you obviously didn't learn anything.

This happens very often and it happens for MANY generations, some are not as important as other so they're just left out...

But what is important is in there, like the age of the earth from Adam info.

LOL, you have no clue what you're talking about! LOL You're a joke!

So there are seems to be a lot of people in the genealogies of the Bible that have been omitted.

Thank God for that, it is boring enough already. At least the important stuff can be found.

YET another proof of what I'm dealing with here?! Maybe when you read the Bible you got bored and missed the point?!? LOL or you saw the point and said "So?".

So your attempt to use genealogies fails due to the amount of missing links... you accept the genealogies of the Bible with MANY missing links.

They are not missing where they are not meant to be, such as the line of Adam.

The line of Adam is EVERYBODY mentioned in the Bible LOL, and we see that a lot of people are not shown. I have showed you that the word son is not always in the current sense, it might mean grandson, grand-grandson and it might mean other things. There are so many inconsistencies that it's hard to even get a grasp on them, yet you try to base the age of earth on these inconsistencies.

How about you face it and understand that no matter how you look at it there are many missing links which provide for a 20% to 40% margin of error in MANY of the genealogies that you base your argument on.

The years are not missing in the line of Ada, Some people researched that, and their results are in, and are not that far apart. They can't be.

Great point, does that prove that the earth is young? NO!

If you ignore some of the details, then you end up concluding that the Earth is Young, but if you pay attention you will notice that your logic is WRONG! I win!?!?

No, you can't win. Blowing smoke about a bunch of incomplete genealogical lines in the bible is ridiculous. The years from Adam are clear as a bell. You have the job of believing them or not. There is no need to tuck the bible's tail in and run from science, and cook up old ages in the bible. That is a Laodocean legend.

That's your proof that the earth is young?! I see you got none!

What you forget is that EVERYBODY descended from Adam (and Eve), so if you are saying that only the people from Adam's side are accounted for, then you are claiming that ALL people are accounted for, yet it is shown that this is not the case. You are a very confused individual, try to understand other people's arguments then comment on them. I think I'm done here!

I gave you a 2 page rebuttal and all you had to say is "So?"! So: you don't know what you're talking about and you lose! Face it!

 

[dad]

What are you saying?! Geesh, write like a normal person. Listen, you seem not to be getting any of what I said? Why is that? If this keeps going then I don't see a point in talking to you at all.

Here is the point, forget all the other so called genealogies in the bible for ages. Concentrate on Gensis, and Adam, and where Usher got his info. Did he need all the rest of the ones you posted??? If not, they don't matter, quit trying to confuse and cloud the issue.

OK, great point! That right there proves that the earth is young..... NOOOT!

It doesn't have anything to do with the age of the earth, just defending the bible from the sort of dirt you are throwing around, trying to cast doubt on things.

LOL, you have no clue what you're talking about! LOL You're a joke!

Well, I think I have your number.
"The ages and relationships of the patriarchs, given in Genesis and shown on the opposite page, allow one to estimate the time of Adam’s creation at slightly more than 6,000 years ago. What uncertainties are involved?

a. These ages are based on the Hebrew (Masoretic) text and almost all English translations. The corresponding numbers in the Samaritan and Greek (Septuagint) texts place Adam’s creation about 6,200 and 7,300 years ago, respectively. Which text is closest to the original is an open question. As one issue, consider that Methuselah died 14 years after the flood, if one uses the Septuagintâ€â€a logical impossibility, considering that he was not on the Ark. (Some sources say that the name Methuselah means, “When he is dead, it shall be sent.†According to the numbers in this chart, the flood began in the year Methuselah died.)

b. Some ages in all three texts have evidently been rounded, because too many numbers end in zero or five. Rounding 15 or so ages in Genesis probably would not inject more than 20 years of total error. A possible problem with the Masoretic and Samaritan texts is that Methuselah died exactly in the year of the flood, despite this rounding.

c. Disagreements exist concerning Terah’s age when Abraham was born. Some argue that Terah was 70 years, not the favored 130 years shown in this chart.1

d. Luke 3:36 lists Cainan as the son of Arpachshad and the father of Shelah. In Genesis, Cainan’s name occurs only in recent copies of the Septuagintâ€â€not the oldest. Nor is Cainan in the oldest known copy of Luke. Therefore, a copyist probably added Cainan’s name inadvertently, perhaps taking it from Luke 3:37.

e. Most students of the subject place the death of Joseph (Jacob’s son) between 1606 B.C. and 1690 B.C. An error in this date will add a corresponding error to the year of Adam’s creation.

Theistic evolutionists often raise two objections to the chronological information in Genesis.

a. Some say, pointing to Cainan, that the genealogies contain gaps. However, the possibility of gaps is irrelevant to the year of Adam’s creation."
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1305038

The line of Adam is EVERYBODY mentioned in the Bible LOL,

Not in a way that is meant to count years from. Some mention it for other reasons, as the new testament.

and we see that a lot of people are not shown. I have showed you that the word son is not always in the current sense, it might mean grandson, grand-grandson and it might mean other things. There are so many inconsistencies that it's hard to even get a grasp on them, yet you try to base the age of earth on these inconsistencies.

No, there is great consistency in the ages since Adam. Do you doubt how long Seth lived??

What you forget is that EVERYBODY descended from Adam (and Eve), so if you are saying that only the people from Adam's side are accounted for, then you are claiming that ALL people are accounted for, yet it is shown that this is not the case.

No, only the firstborn son is counted. All the people don't enter into it. This is news??

You are a very confused individual, try to understand other people's arguments then comment on them. I think I'm done here!

Done in.

I gave you a 2 page rebuttal and all you had to say is "So?"! So: you don't know what you're talking about and you lose! Face it!

[/quote]
You tried to confuse the issue, and I wouldn't let you. The sons of Adam are given, and the aprox age of the earth is well known. Your only point, apparently is to try and belittle the bible genealogies, by lumping a bunch together that are not meant to deal with the age of the earth. Pray for some wisdom. (Not man's wisdom, maybe pray to lose that)

 

[love2live]

You tried to confuse the issue, and I wouldn't let you. The sons of Adam are given, and the aprox age of the earth is well known. Your only point, apparently is to try and belittle the bible genealogies, by lumping a bunch together that are not meant to deal with the age of the earth. Pray for some wisdom. (Not man's wisdom, maybe pray to lose that)

Then list them! List all the descendants of Adam and give us the years showing the age of the earth. I want the list of Adam's descendants ONLY, and I will help you Adam through Christ is given here:
http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html
1. You put the ages in there.
2. Account for the missing people.


As you pointed out yourself:

a. These ages are based on the Hebrew (Masoretic) text and almost all English translations. The corresponding numbers in the Samaritan and Greek (Septuagint) texts place Adam’s creation about 6,200 and 7,300 years ago, respectively. Which text is closest to the original is an open question. As one issue, consider that Methuselah died 14 years after the flood, if one uses the Septuagintâ€â€a logical impossibility, considering that he was not on the Ark. (Some sources say that the name Methuselah means, “When he is dead, it shall be sent.†According to the numbers in this chart, the flood began in the year Methuselah died.)

b. Some ages in all three texts have evidently been rounded, because too many numbers end in zero or five. Rounding 15 or so ages in Genesis probably would not inject more than 20 years of total error. A possible problem with the Masoretic and Samaritan texts is that Methuselah died exactly in the year of the flood, despite this rounding.

c. Disagreements exist concerning Terah’s age when Abraham was born. Some argue that Terah was 70 years, not the favored 130 years shown in this chart.1

d. Luke 3:36 lists Cainan as the son of Arpachshad and the father of Shelah. In Genesis, Cainan’s name occurs only in recent copies of the Septuagintâ€â€not the oldest. Nor is Cainan in the oldest known copy of Luke. Therefore, a copyist probably added Cainan’s name inadvertently, perhaps taking it from Luke 3:37.

e. Most students of the subject place the death of Joseph (Jacob’s son) between 1606 B.C. and 1690 B.C. An error in this date will add a corresponding error to the year of Adam’s creation.

Theistic evolutionists often raise two objections to the chronological information in Genesis.

It seems that even your source admits a certain possibility for error, and that's a source which tries to push the idea that the earth is about 6000 years old. If you look at any critics of this theory you will see that not only the above mentioned inconsistencies exist, but there are MANY more which are not accounted for. You try to build Titanic out of straws, not only will it not float, but it won't even support its own weight- but even if you get it to float you have still built a Titanic and it will sink anyway!

 

[dad]

]

Then list them! List all the descendants of Adam and give us the years showing the age of the earth. I want the list of Adam's descendants ONLY, and I will help you Adam through Christ is given here:
http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html
1. You put the ages in there.
2. Account for the missing people.

No need to go all the way to Jesus. Just to the start of reliable recorded history.


" * Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages  the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead. [good on him, I agree]

* Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings' reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline.

* Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (in 2 Kings 25:27).
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

As you pointed out yourself:

It seems that even your source admits a certain possibility for error, and that's a source which tries to push the idea that the earth is about 6000 years old. If you look at any critics of this theory you will see that not only the above mentioned inconsistencies exist, but there are MANY more which are not accounted for. You try to build Titanic out of straws, not only will it not float, but it won't even support its own weight- but even if you get it to float you have still built a Titanic and it will sink anyway!

Not possibility for error, but for interpretation. But it is meaninglessly small. Also, upon a closer look, one can eliminate certain guesses. Methuselah did not live till after the flood, for example.

In the end, the truth marches right over your silly doubts.

 

[love2live]

No need to go all the way to Jesus. Just to the start of reliable recorded history.

OK, do you see why that doesn't make sense?
1. We can use the Bible up to the start of reliable history records, but after that we can't use it? Why not?
2. Yes you do need to show the genealogy all the way up to Jesus, because recorded history doesn't even show that Jesus existed... so there is almost nothing in "reliable history records" that corresponds to the genealogy provided in the Bible.
3. Do you also see a gap in your story now? Remember your theory of the split after Noah's flood? Well according to your map there you will see that Shem and Eber lived almost another 200 years after Noah's death and certainly more than 200 years after the flood. You claim that after the flood things switched to "normal" and people would have started living the short lifespans, yet Eber and Shem both lived over 200 years after the flood...

" * Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages  the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead. [good on him, I agree]

* Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings' reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline.

* Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (in 2 Kings 25:27).
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

In the end, the truth marches right over your silly doubts.

OK, you provide us with support to our "silly doubts" ... for that I give you full respect! This is the first time you consider and offer evidence against your own theory!

And the reason why anybody would think that the earth is about 6000 years old to begin with? According to the same wiki page you provided: "Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8)."

EDITED- in light of the underlined text.

 

[dad]

OK, do you see why that doesn't make sense?
1. We can use the Bible up to the start of reliable history records, but after that we can't use it? Why not?

No need to I guess God knew there would be records for that sort of thing.

2. Yes you do need to show the genealogy all the way up to Jesus, because recorded history doesn't even show that Jesus existed... so there is almost nothing in "reliable history records" that corresponds to the genealogy provided in the Bible.

You must be kidding? The bible is recorded history. What was it, 5,000,000 martyrs died in the early ear?? Many of them saw Jesus, and others knew folks that did. We have the record. Not to mention the fact that the Romans existed, and Herod, and etc.

3. Do you also see a gap in your story now? Remember your theory of the split after Noah's flood? Well according to your map there you will see that Shem and Eber lived almost another 200 years after Noah's death and certainly more than 200 years after the flood. You claim that after the flood things switched to "normal" and people would have started living the short lifespans, yet Eber and Shem both lived over 200 years after the flood...

No, that is not a gap, that is lessening lifespans. Shem was born pre flood. And Eber was born pre split!

Ge 10:25 - And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

The evidence mounts.

OK, you provide us with support to our "silly doubts" ... for that I give you full respect! This is the first time you consider and offer evidence against your own theory!

If you think the YEC timetable somehow is opposed to the YEC timetable, you just go from silly to sillier.

And the reason why anybody would think that the earth is about 6000 years old to begin with? According to the same wiki page you provided: "Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8)."

May have smay have. Says who? And influenced to affect the end result how much a few days?? Maybe God influenced him.

In the end, after the all doubting dust you try to kick up settles, we have a clear time that Adam lived. Just like I told you. Say uncle.

 

[love2live]

No need to I guess God knew there would be records for that sort of thing.

Nice guess, anything to support that GUESS!?

You must be kidding? The bible is recorded history. What was it, 5,000,000 martyrs died in the early ear?? Many of them saw Jesus, and others knew folks that did. We have the record. Not to mention the fact that the Romans existed, and Herod, and etc.

LOL OK! Didn't you say that we use the bible up to the point where we have reliable recorded history? And what did I say? Remember the part where you were supposed to read other people's comments before you posted? I guess you forgot again...

3. Do you also see a gap in your story now? Remember your theory of the split after Noah's flood? Well according to your map there you will see that Shem and Eber lived almost another 200 years after Noah's death and certainly more than 200 years after the flood. You claim that after the flood things switched to "normal" and people would have started living the short lifespans, yet Eber and Shem both lived over 200 years after the flood...

No, that is not a gap, that is lessening lifespans. Shem was born pre flood. And Eber was born pre split!

Ge 10:25 - And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

The evidence mounts.

I guess you missed the point, AGAIN! So I will repeat: your claim is that after the flood there was a split and things became "normal" people started living the normal lifespans. Well Both Shem and Eber lived for over 200 years after the flood... not quite aligned with your fable!

OK, you provide us with support to our "silly doubts" ... for that I give you full respect! This is the first time you consider and offer evidence against your own theory!

If you think the YEC timetable somehow is opposed to the YEC timetable, you just go from silly to sillier.

LOL, I think you forgot to comprehend this time... remember the part you posted about the Early and the Late Kings, and during that time the timetable cannot be extended because the records are missing?!?! Well that's the part I'm talking about, is that clear now?!

And the reason why anybody would think that the earth is about 6000 years old to begin with? According to the same wiki page you provided: "Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8)."

May have smay have. Says who? And influenced to affect the end result how much a few days?? Maybe God influenced him.

Maybe is a big word, and you seem to apply it way too often in your reasoning. Maybe, your there is a problem in your reasoning, just MAYBE!

In the end, after the all doubting dust you try to kick up settles, we have a clear time that Adam lived. Just like I told you. Say uncle.

Uncle!
And who is arguing that Adam didn't live?! Listen, you're not paying attention to the conversation, to my arguments or to anything else around you.
I will repeat it:
1. There are MANY sources used to construct the time table from Adam to the Early Kings, and there is a possibility for error there. The reason why there might be errors is presented in my 2 page rebuttal of your theory, but I bet you completely forgot about it!
2. Once you get to the Early Kings, then the time table cannot be continue due to lack of records.

You can say and do whatever you want, but your magical story is nothing more than a fairy tale. Believe in it all you want, the rest of us know better!

 

[dad]

Nice guess, anything to support that GUESS!?

The fact that it was needed seems to speak loudly.

LOL OK! Didn't you say that we use the bible up to the point where we have reliable recorded history? And what did I say? Remember the part where you were supposed to read other people's comments before you posted? I guess you forgot again...

Point??? Both were used for Usher, and others.

I guess you missed the point, AGAIN! So I will repeat: your claim is that after the flood there was a split and things became "normal" people started living the normal lifespans. Well Both Shem and Eber lived for over 200 years after the flood... not quite aligned with your fable!

Eber was born before the split. Now, Peleg was born at the split time, apparently. It is between these guys we see a tremendous drop in lifespan. The pattern after Peleg is easily fitted to some sort of genetic deterioration.

LOL, I think you forgot to comprehend this time... remember the part you posted about the Early and the Late Kings, and during that time the timetable cannot be extended because the records are missing?!?! Well that's the part I'm talking about, is that clear now?!

Since we have records, after that, who cares??

Maybe is a big word, and you seem to apply it way too often in your reasoning. Maybe, your there is a problem in your reasoning, just MAYBE!

Maybe He knows what He is doing after all, despite people of your doubting opinions.

1. There are MANY sources used to construct the time table from Adam to the Early Kings, and there is a possibility for error there. The reason why there might be errors is presented in my 2 page rebuttal of your theory, but I bet you completely forgot about it!

Well, we do not need two pages to explain what possible errors could lead to a major time difference. Not if you know what you are talking about.

2. Once you get to the Early Kings, then the time table cannot be continue due to lack of records.

So? Long as God provided the records up till recorded history, we still know the approx age of the earth.

I can see why you said uncle.

 

[love2live]

Nice guess, anything to support that GUESS!?

The fact that it was needed seems to speak loudly.

It's still a GUESS, and it's a guess which you try to push on others. What was needed FOR YOUR idea to be true is not necessarily what happened. Your entire argument falls on the point that since YOUR case needs this to be true, then it must be true.

Eber was born before the split. Now, Peleg was born at the split time, apparently. It is between these guys we see a tremendous drop in lifespan. The pattern after Peleg is easily fitted to some sort of genetic deterioration.

Genetic deterioration? OMG, yet another thing made up... this proves it again: if your story needs something to be true, then you will claim it's true just to get your story right! Another GUESS and NOTHING MORE!

[quote:71cd9]1. There are MANY sources used to construct the time table from Adam to the Early Kings, and there is a possibility for error there. The reason why there might be errors is presented in my 2 page rebuttal of your theory, but I bet you completely forgot about it!

Well, we do not need two pages to explain what possible errors could lead to a major time difference. Not if you know what you are talking about.[/quote:71cd9]
WE don't need 2 page of explanations where errors could come from but YOU do, because apparently you don't account for them in any of your wild theories.

2. Once you get to the Early Kings, then the time table cannot be continue due to lack of records.

So? Long as God provided the records up till recorded history, we still know the approx age of the earth.

I can see why you said uncle.

Uncle! The records of recorded history do not help your case, because they don't provide you with any evidence which can help you conclude that the earth is Young, so I don't know why you even look at them... Uncle!

 

[dad]

It's still a GUESS, and it's a guess which you try to push on others. What was needed FOR YOUR idea to be true is not necessarily what happened. Your entire argument falls on the point that since YOUR case needs this to be true, then it must be true.

Something needs to be true. If God is true, that is a good start.

Genetic deterioration? OMG, yet another thing made up... this proves it again: if your story needs something to be true, then you will claim it's true just to get your story right! Another GUESS and NOTHING MORE!

Well, after the life processes were different, we see shorter lifespans. We also see no more sister brother reproduction as normal. We also see no fast evolution rates, or plant growth rates. If the change started as this present universe state started, then we need to look inside the box here for reasons that folks from Peleg on down lived less time. That is a lot easier than looking to 1000 year lifespans. Peleg only lived a little over a few centuries.

WE don't need 2 page of explanations where errors could come from but YOU do, because apparently you don't account for them in any of your wild theories.

Too much niquil? You are droning on about heaven knows what here.

Uncle! The records of recorded history do not help your case, because they don't provide you with any evidence which can help you conclude that the earth is Young, so I don't know why you even look at them... Uncle!

Waving the white flag, and repeating uncle only has merit if you mean it. The records of the bible take us up to recorded history, and the result is dates to the Garden of Eden, within a small range of possible interpreting. What else matters???