[_ Old Earth _] Genesis and the age of the earth

[stovebolts]

yeah...

I commiserate with you about these supposed Christians who contend that Jchrist was the Truth, personified, and their light into the real world where Satan is the liar they hate.

Its been an experinece for me to see the posts that show these people worship a way of explaining the Bible which they will never admit is archaic and medieval.

They pass down the interpretations of scripture AND the rule that no one can examine or change those interpretations forevermore as if those ideas are sacred regardless of what the Scriptures actually say, upon close examination, or are dead wrong according to the facts we now know are true.

Woo unto Christian America if these self serving interpretations are what the people will be feed until the muslims get here wit their swords.

And with that we see the true spirit in which you operate. It was only a matter of time.

 

[stovebolts]

All my Bibles say:

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The words "to mark sacred times" are not there.
But, the four seasons are mentioned.

Seasons, Sacred Times, it's a translational thingy. I'm good with either as far as this is concerned.

How to you understand this portion?

and let them be for signs

How would they be a sign for a day?

 

[cupid dave]

I was meerly pointing out that according to Genesis, the sun and stars were created after the earth.
.

No, the long standing error of this misinterpretation of the word asah, or "made," does not mean created as it can be used in ZEnglish.

It means the sun wasgiven authority to rule over the Solar Clock.
The sun was "ordained" the time keeper on Earth.


Strong's Concordance
Transliteration:`asah = made [H6213] =
made: [asah = appoint, ordained, institute]

`asah
verb
a primitive root
1) to work, produce
a) to act, act with effect, effect
2) to make
a) to attend to, put in order
b) to appoint, ordained, institute

 

[cupid dave]

How to you understand this portion?

and let them be for signs

How would they be a sign for a day?

The stars are grouped into constellations by which the seasons can be noted even without a written calendar on hand.
The Stars also are signs in the sky by which the Sidereal Clock (Star Clock) can read of the months:

 

[Free]

Well Free, I don't know so I'm not sure why you would assume I would.

Go ahead and let me know what these significant difficulties are. I'm listening.

I assumed because anyone who has even briefly looked into the genealogies for dating should have come across the problems with them.

The best evidence supports the idea that the genealogies are open, that is, there are gaps despite appearing that they are closed (no gaps). For instance, a comparison of Matt 1:8 and 1 Chr 3:11-12:

1Ch 3:11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,
1Ch 3:12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,

Mat 1:8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah,

It is important to note a few of things:

1. Azariah is most commonly known as Uzziah.
2. There are three missing generations in Matt 1:8, despite the clear statement "Joram the father of Uzziah".
3. The Greek gennao, "the father of," can also mean "forefather" or "ancestor," and the Greek ben, "son," can also mean "descendant" (Jesus son of David, although there are at least 31 generations between).

Looking at another example:

1Ch 6:6 Uzzi fathered Zerahiah, Zerahiah fathered Meraioth,
1Ch 6:7 Meraioth fathered Amariah, Amariah fathered Ahitub,
1Ch 6:8 Ahitub fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Ahimaaz,
1Ch 6:9 Ahimaaz fathered Azariah, Azariah fathered Johanan,
1Ch 6:10 and Johanan fathered Azariah (it was he who served as priest in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem).
1Ch 6:11 Azariah fathered Amariah, Amariah fathered Ahitub,
1Ch 6:12 Ahitub fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Shallum,
1Ch 6:13 Shallum fathered Hilkiah, Hilkiah fathered Azariah,
1Ch 6:14 Azariah fathered Seraiah, Seraiah fathered Jehozadak;

Ezr 7:1 Now after this, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah,
Ezr 7:2 son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub,
Ezr 7:3 son of Amariah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth,
Ezr 7:4 son of Zerahiah, son of Uzzi, son of Bukki,

To make it easier to see, we can rewrite them as follows:

Uzzi fathered Zerahiah, who fathered Meraioth, who fathered Amariah,
who fathered Ahitub, who fathered Zadok, who fathered Ahimaaz,
who fathered Azariah, who fathered Johanan, who fathered Azariah (it was he who served as priest in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem).
who fathered Amariah, who fathered Ahitub, who fathered Zadok,
who fathered Shallum, who fathered Hilkiah, who fathered Azariah,
who fathered Seraiah,

Uzzi fathered Zerahiah, who fathered Meraioth, who fathered Azariah,
who fathered Amariah, who fathered Ahitub, who fathered Zadok,
who fathered Shallum, who fathered Hilkiah, who fathered Azariah,
who fathered Seraiah.

It is easy to see that Ezra omits 6 generations.

When we compare Genesis 5 and 11 to 1 Chr 1:1-28 and Luke 3:34-38, they are identical, except that Luke 3:37 adds "the son of Cainan," an extra generation in between Arphaxad and Shelah/Salah, who is not mentioned in the OT genealogies. With no textual reason for omitting Cainan from Luke, we either have to accept that Luke erred or that the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11 aren't closed.

But despite all that, some interesting and implausible things arise if we accept the genealogies as closed:

First, Adam would have been a contemporary of Noah's father, Lamech. Second, Abraham missed being a contemporary of Noah's by two years. Third, and more implausible, Nahor, the grandfather of Abraham, died before his great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather Noah. Fourth, Isaac would have been born fifty years before Shem died.

Then there are population difficulties. Numbers 3:19, 27-28 says that the four sons of Kohath gave rise to the families of the Amramite, Isharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites, of which the males alone numbered 8600 only one year after the Exodus. This means that the grandfather of Moses had in the lifetime of Moses 8600 male descendants alone, 2750 of whom were between the ages of thirty and fifty (Num 4:36).

Levi's son Kohath was born before Jacob's descent into Egypt (Gen 46:11) where Israel stayed for 430 years (Exod 12:40,41). Since Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus (Exod 7:7), he must have been born more than 350 years after Kohath. Yet Kohath was Moses' grandfather (1 Chron 6:1-3). This would make the generation between Kohath and Moses 350 years long when the life span of Moses' period had already diminished to 120.

And very importantly, nowhere does the Bible even suggest a summation of the numbers listed in Genesis 5 and 11. The Bible itself never uses the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies for any chronological statement. Whereas we are given the time in Egypt and the time from the Exodus to Solomon, we are never given the time from Creation to Abraham.

All that (with the exception of rewriting the passages from Ezra and 1 Chron) is taken from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, pp 267-269. All Bible passages from the ESV.

In summation then, there is no biblical reason to accept the Genesis genealogies as giving us a chronology of even the age of human existence, much less the age of life, the age of the Earth or the age of the universe (all different things).

 

[lordkalvan]

If the age of Earth can be determined by calculations from apparently legendary genealogies in the Bible, on what grounds are the apparently legendary genealogies of the Sumerian King Lists that provide the basis for a much older Earth (at least 250,000 years) rejected?

 

[cupid dave]

If the age of Earth can be determined by calculations from apparently legendary genealogies in the Bible, on what grounds are the apparently legendary genealogies of the Sumerian King Lists that provide the basis for a much older Earth (at least 250,000 years) rejected?

Yeah...

What religious people must admit is that a person first must believe in the God desribed in the Bible so as to warrant what we read there to be actually true, too.

This is recursive in that the Bible was written to convince us of this God, so we can not say what we read is unquestionably true because the wirters tell us the God they reveal said it.

It is like me saying that I am an expert so, whatever I say you must believe before I prove I am, indeed, an expert.

A second cravat to this point is that the reader then must read comprehensively.


My argument is that the Bible is correct that our God is Truth, and the proper reading tells us the first seven "days" were not 24 hours because the Sun was not make the Solar Time keeper until the 4th duration of God's creation.

 

[cupid dave]

Posted by cupid dave
yeah...

I commiserate with you about these supposed Christians who contend that Jchrist was the Truth, personified, and their light into the real world where Satan is the liar they hate.

Its been an experinece for me to see the posts that show these people worship a way of explaining the Bible which they will never admit is archaic and medieval.

They pass down the interpretations of scripture AND the rule that no one can examine or change those interpretations, forevermore,...
... as if those ideas are sacred regardless of what the Scriptures actually say, upon close examination, or are dead wrong according to the facts we now know are true.

Woo unto Christian America if these self serving interpretations are what the people will be feed until the muslims get here with their swords.


///////


And with that we see the true spirit in which you operate. It was only a matter of time.

I assume you mean Truth, that "the true spirit in which I operate" is to compare the Bible to established truth, (historical, archeological, scientific, academic, etc truths)?

 

[lordkalvan]

Yeah...

What religious people must admit is that a person first must believe in the God desribed in the Bible so as to warrant what we read there to be actually true, too.

This is recursive in that the Bible was written to convince us of this God, so we can not say what we read is unquestionably true because the wirters tell us the God they reveal said it.

It is like me saying that I am an expert so, whatever I say you must believe before I prove I am, indeed, an expert.

A second cravat to this point is that the reader then must read comprehensively.


My argument is that the Bible is correct that our God is Truth, and the proper reading tells us the first seven "days" were not 24 hours because the Sun was not make the Solar Time keeper until the 4th duration of God's creation.

Works for me insofar as any religiously-based interpretation does....

 

[stovebolts]

I assumed because anyone who has even briefly looked into the genealogies for dating should have come across the problems with them.

The best evidence supports the idea that the genealogies are open, that is, there are gaps despite appearing that they are closed (no gaps). For instance, a comparison of Matt 1:8 and 1 Chr 3:11-12:

1Ch 3:11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,
1Ch 3:12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,

Mat 1:8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah,

It is important to note a few of things:

1. Azariah is most commonly known as Uzziah.
2. There are three missing generations in Matt 1:8, despite the clear statement "Joram the father of Uzziah".
3. The Greek gennao, "the father of," can also mean "forefather" or "ancestor," and the Greek ben, "son," can also mean "descendant" (Jesus son of David, although there are at least 31 generations between).

Looking at another example:

1Ch 6:6 Uzzi fathered Zerahiah, Zerahiah fathered Meraioth,
1Ch 6:7 Meraioth fathered Amariah, Amariah fathered Ahitub,
1Ch 6:8 Ahitub fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Ahimaaz,
1Ch 6:9 Ahimaaz fathered Azariah, Azariah fathered Johanan,
1Ch 6:10 and Johanan fathered Azariah (it was he who served as priest in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem).
1Ch 6:11 Azariah fathered Amariah, Amariah fathered Ahitub,
1Ch 6:12 Ahitub fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Shallum,
1Ch 6:13 Shallum fathered Hilkiah, Hilkiah fathered Azariah,
1Ch 6:14 Azariah fathered Seraiah, Seraiah fathered Jehozadak;

Ezr 7:1 Now after this, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah,
Ezr 7:2 son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub,
Ezr 7:3 son of Amariah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth,
Ezr 7:4 son of Zerahiah, son of Uzzi, son of Bukki,

To make it easier to see, we can rewrite them as follows:

Uzzi fathered Zerahiah, who fathered Meraioth, who fathered Amariah,
who fathered Ahitub, who fathered Zadok, who fathered Ahimaaz,
who fathered Azariah, who fathered Johanan, who fathered Azariah (it was he who served as priest in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem).
who fathered Amariah, who fathered Ahitub, who fathered Zadok,
who fathered Shallum, who fathered Hilkiah, who fathered Azariah,
who fathered Seraiah,

Uzzi fathered Zerahiah, who fathered Meraioth, who fathered Azariah,
who fathered Amariah, who fathered Ahitub, who fathered Zadok,
who fathered Shallum, who fathered Hilkiah, who fathered Azariah,
who fathered Seraiah.

It is easy to see that Ezra omits 6 generations.

When we compare Genesis 5 and 11 to 1 Chr 1:1-28 and Luke 3:34-38, they are identical, except that Luke 3:37 adds "the son of Cainan," an extra generation in between Arphaxad and Shelah/Salah, who is not mentioned in the OT genealogies. With no textual reason for omitting Cainan from Luke, we either have to accept that Luke erred or that the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11 aren't closed.

But despite all that, some interesting and implausible things arise if we accept the genealogies as closed:

First, Adam would have been a contemporary of Noah's father, Lamech. Second, Abraham missed being a contemporary of Noah's by two years. Third, and more implausible, Nahor, the grandfather of Abraham, died before his great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather Noah. Fourth, Isaac would have been born fifty years before Shem died.

Then there are population difficulties. Numbers 3:19, 27-28 says that the four sons of Kohath gave rise to the families of the Amramite, Isharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites, of which the males alone numbered 8600 only one year after the Exodus. This means that the grandfather of Moses had in the lifetime of Moses 8600 male descendants alone, 2750 of whom were between the ages of thirty and fifty (Num 4:36).

Levi's son Kohath was born before Jacob's descent into Egypt (Gen 46:11) where Israel stayed for 430 years (Exod 12:40,41). Since Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus (Exod 7:7), he must have been born more than 350 years after Kohath. Yet Kohath was Moses' grandfather (1 Chron 6:1-3). This would make the generation between Kohath and Moses 350 years long when the life span of Moses' period had already diminished to 120.

And very importantly, nowhere does the Bible even suggest a summation of the numbers listed in Genesis 5 and 11. The Bible itself never uses the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies for any chronological statement. Whereas we are given the time in Egypt and the time from the Exodus to Solomon, we are never given the time from Creation to Abraham.

All that (with the exception of rewriting the passages from Ezra and 1 Chron) is taken from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, pp 267-269. All Bible passages from the ESV.

In summation then, there is no biblical reason to accept the Genesis genealogies as giving us a chronology of even the age of human existence, much less the age of life, the age of the Earth or the age of the universe (all different things).

Free,
Thank you for posting this. Id like to make the comment that I see a few things already that I disagree with, but I don't like posting from my phone. There are other areas that ill have to take aa closer look into. Ill get back with you on this.

 

[cupid dave]

Works for me insofar as any religiously-based interpretation does....

Hmmm...
Not sure i get your point here.

Do you mean it works for you, that other religions like the Sumerian have as good a case as the Christians, as far as you are concerned?

Where do you stand in regard to Science as a tool that separates what is true from what is not?
Do you use that yard stick to evaluate the religious texts and compare them with one another in regard to which seem more correct than another???

For example, is the Bible genealogy which developes into one of the earliest attempts at a Table of the Nations pretty good in comparison with other religious writing before and after the bible?

I mean, based upon the factual present day insights into such a Table.

This is to say, if the Sumarian myth is mostly about Gods interacting ion some heavenly environment and then the list of Kings that follows does not seem to correspond with our present knowledge of the growth of civilization, do you tend to discard on book rather than another in some heirarchy of validity you migh attach to it?

 

[lordkalvan]

Hmmm...
Not sure i get your point here.

It means that it's a more reasonable interpretation than others I have come across, although that doesn't mean that I accept it's validity.

Do you mean it works for you, that other religions like the Sumerian have as good a case as the Christians, as far as you are concerned?

I was referring to your description. As far as I am concerned, the ages in the genealogies in Genesis are equally as mythical as those in the Sumerian King Lists.

Where do you stand in regard to Science as a tool that separates what is true from what is not?

Depends what is being measured, but for many things it's the best thing we've got.

Do you use that yard stick to evaluate the religious texts and compare them with one another in regard to which seem more correct than another???

'More correct' requires a value judgement concerning what 'correctness' is being assigned to. The Bible contains some obvious historical facts, for example, but Egyptian mythology less obviously so.

For example, is the Bible genealogy which developes into one of the earliest attempts at a Table of the Nations pretty good in comparison with other religious writing before and after the bible?

Well, the competition is not so strong that this can be presented as a meaningful debating point, in my opinion.

I mean, based upon the factual present day insights into such a Table.

Well, I am not persuaded that these supposed insights offer much in the way of 'factualising' this table.

This is to say, if the Sumarian myth is mostly about Gods interacting ion some heavenly environment and then the list of Kings that follows does not seem to correspond with our present knowledge of the growth of civilization, do you tend to discard on book rather than another in some heirarchy of validity you migh attach to it?

As far as the genealogies and the ages attached totem, I would discard both Genesis and the Sumerian King Lists as inadequately evidenced, which is to say not at all.

 

[cupid dave]

It means that it's a more reasonable interpretation than others I have come across, although that doesn't mean that I accept it's validity.

I was referring to your description. As far as I am concerned, the ages in the genealogies in Genesis are equally as mythical as those in the Sumerian King Lists.

Depends what is being measured, but for many things it's the best thing we've got.

'More correct' requires a value judgement concerning what 'correctness' is being assigned to. The Bible contains some obvious historical facts, for example, but Egyptian mythology less obviously so.

Well, the competition is not so strong that this can be presented as a meaningful debating point, in my opinion.

Well, I am not persuaded that these supposed insights offer much in the way of 'factualising' this table.

As far as the genealogies and the ages attached totem, I would discard both Genesis and the Sumerian King Lists as inadequately evidenced, which is to say not at all.

On a purely academic level I don't believe there is any other older or more carefully preserved text even available to researchers of Ancient History, Archeology, Philosophy, Sociology, even Physical Science, for instance.

It is my opinion that with the exception of the Old Testament there is no comparable writing even availbale to us today by which we can examine ancient societies as far back as 1360BC with a very hih regard for the information that is made available to us.

To say that the bible is a treasure of immense academic value may seem a subjective opinion since the same writings are held in such contempt for what religion has utilized from those writings, but realistically, what else do we even have that could span the ages involved and give us a real insight to a whole society in great detail?

I think what you say above is slightly biased bythose things written which either you do not yet understand, choose to ignore, misinterpret, or distain because the church has established its own tenets upon much of the text and you are not pro-religion.

 

[lordkalvan]

On a purely academic level I don't believe there is any other older or more carefully preserved text even available to researchers of Ancient History, Archeology, Philosophy, Sociology, even Physical Science, for instance.

I disagree. There is a wealth of written material from Dynastic Egypt that long predates the Old Testament (and certainly predates by an even longer period of time the extant copies of the OT that we have). Certainly astronomy is poorly represented in the Bible, as is medicine, both of which sciences show more advanced knowledge than is demonstrated in the OT. Also, the concept of maat in Egypt is at least as philosophically complex as anything in the OT and the Dynastic Egyptian justice system, which also long predates any formulations of laws in the OT, is in my opinion more sophisticated and advanced in practice (in the legal status granted to women, for example), than anything comparable in the OT.

It is my opinion that with the exception of the Old Testament there is no comparable writing even availbale to us today by which we can examine ancient societies as far back as 1360BC with a very hih regard for the information that is made available to us.

Well, in that case I think you need to go away and do some more research on Dynastic Egypt as one society about which we know a great deal that predates 1360 BC, even granting the unspecified precision of your quoted date.

To say that the bible is a treasure of immense academic value may seem a subjective opinion since the same writings are held in such contempt for what religion has utilized from those writings, but realistically, what else do we even have that could span the ages involved and give us a real insight to a whole society in great detail?

The records of Dynastic Egyptian bureaucracy, for one thing.

I think what you say above is slightly biased bythose things written which either you do not yet understand, choose to ignore, misinterpret, or distain because the church has established its own tenets upon much of the text and you are not pro-religion.

Well, you may be right, but I prefer to argue that my opinions are based on the weight of evidence amongst those things that I do understand.

 

[cupid dave]

I disagree. There is a wealth of written material from Dynastic Egypt that long predates the Old Testament (and certainly predates by an even longer period of time the extant copies of the OT that we have). Certainly astronomy is poorly represented in the Bible, as is medicine, both of which sciences show more advanced knowledge than is demonstrated in the OT. Also, the concept of maat in Egypt is at least as philosophically complex as anything in the OT and the Dynastic Egyptian justice system, which also long predates any formulations of laws in the OT, is in my opinion more sophisticated and advanced in practice (in the legal status granted to women, for example), than anything comparable in the OT.

Well, in that case I think you need to go away and do some more research on Dynastic Egypt as one society about which we know a great deal that predates 1360 BC, even granting the unspecified precision of your quoted date.

The records of Dynastic Egyptian bureaucracy, for one thing.

Well, you may be right, but I prefer to argue that my opinions are based on the weight of evidence amongst those things that I do understand.

...but Moses was an Egyptian.

His writings are just a continuation of the Egyptian experience comparable to that which the New Testament similarly compares to analogously, in regard to the previous Judaism.

To argue that you discredit the Old Testament while holding the carvings on walls of pyramids and a variety of funeral scrolls as if highly repectable accounts about the ancient world seems inconsistent or even contradictory.

You suggest that our modern archeological finds are superior to the Bible, which you ignore extends those same findings, even includes the Jews of today as the living "relic" that has also added writings and commentary since leaving Egypt in 1352-62BC.

What I see is that the Bible is really the oldest commentary on all the Egyptian finds you refer to, and a criticism of that culture which expended its total energy on failed hopes for a costly Health Plan that was thought would save people from death.

The Bible is actually the sum of the Egyptian culture as a failed civilization that though an Obamacare-like expenditure of huge costly pyramids, it was thought worthy of a focus of their whole economy, more foolish because the Old Testament exposed its false theory of seven planetary gods.

What is see is that the Old Testament was the funeral durge for the first attempt at civilization and a complain about the next six to follow.

What writing could even compare in importance with such a sociology?
(Especial writings from that same society.)

 

[lordkalvan]

...but Moses was an Egyptian.

Only according to legend.

His writings are just a continuation of the Egyptian experience comparable to that which the New Testament similarly compares to analogously, in regard to the previous Judaism.

There seems to be very little in the books of the OT attributed to Moses that corresponds with 'the Egyptian experience'.

To argue that you discredit the Old Testament while holding the carvings on walls of pyramids and a variety of funeral scrolls as if highly repectable accounts about the ancient world seems inconsistent or even contradictory.

I was simply pointing out that your assertion IRO the OT was not correct.

You suggest that our modern archeological finds are superior to the Bible, which you ignore extends those same findings, even includes the Jews of today as the living "relic" that has also added writings and commentary since leaving Egypt in 1352-62BC.

Well, archaeology can increase our confidence in contemporary documents. In my opinion, the Jews never were in Egypt, at least not in the way imaginatively described in Exodus.

What I see is that the Bible is really the oldest commentary on all the Egyptian finds you refer to...

For example?

...and a criticism of that culture which expended its total energy on failed hopes for a costly Health Plan that was thought would save people from death.

Well, as it didn't do what you allege it did, your point is moot at best.

The Bible is actually the sum of the Egyptian culture as a failed civilization that though an Obamacare-like expenditure of huge costly pyramids, it was thought worthy of a focus of their whole economy, more foolish because the Old Testament exposed its false theory of seven planetary gods.

Again, your three-line summary of a civilisation that endured three thousand years or more is a complete caricature. As far as the Egyptians were concerned, the OT 'exposed' nothing.

What is see is that the Old Testament was the funeral durge for the first attempt at civilization and a complain about the next six to follow.

Well, unless you can elaborate this thesis, I don't see any substance to your claim.

What writing could even compare in importance with such a sociology?
(Especial writings from that same society.)

Well, anything that gives us insights into the society that produced them. Just because they're not gathered together in one document does not make them any less significant than those that are.

 

[cupid dave]

dave:
What is see is that the Old Testament was the funeral durge for the first attempt at civilization and a complain about the next six to follow.

//////\


lordkalvan:


....Only according to legend.

There seems to be very little in the books of the OT attributed to Moses that corresponds with 'the Egyptian experience'.

.

Well, archaeology can increase our confidence in contemporary documents. In my opinion, the Jews never were in Egypt, at least not in the way imaginatively described in Exodus.

Again, your three-line summary of a civilisation that endured three thousand years or more is a complete caricature. As far as the Egyptians were concerned, the OT 'exposed' nothing.

Well, unless you can elaborate this thesis, I don't see any substance to your claim.

Well, anything that gives us insights into the society that produced them. Just because they're not gathered together in one document does not make them any less significant than those that are.

Let me start what might be aong discussion before you see my point.

Particular, since you give the archeology a lot of credence in regard to the Egyptian artifacts that you hold in enough esteem to find them superior to what is written in the Bible,... consider that the whole Exodus story is clearly connected to the recent archeological discovery of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten.

The discovery of this Pharaoh Akhenaten revealed that his existence was intentionally hidden from History by all the Pharaohs who followed him.
The implication being that his connection to the Exodus story and the conversion of himself, his family, and all the institutions in Egypt to a single, unexplainable episode of Monotheism in 1352BC refers to the Exodus.

In his 1939 book Moses and Monotheism Sigmund Freud presented the idea that Crown Prince Thutmose's younger brother Akhenaten was associated with the Biblical character Moses.

This initial supposition is now reinforced by the genetic evidence.

The Jewish priests of today, called Cohans, have been found to be related to one man, their father Aaron, who lived at the same time as this Pharaoh, Akhenaten, or 1352-62AD.

The argument I present here is that these two ideas, genetics and archeology confirm the Exodus story albeit somewhat metaphorical, and give us a living testimony to all the Egyptology we try to piece together from other diggings that were intended for us to discover.

The Pharaohs who did such a great job of erasing that short period of monotheism and the Age of Amarna as it is now refwerred to by such actions support the embarrassing subordination that Exodus tells us about as Egypt was brought to its knees by one little old man Moses.

So what I am saying is that the Old Testament is actually the end of the story of Egyptology to a large degree, not exclusive from it.

 

[thightower]

From the point of view from an simple country boy. I believe it when the bible says "the first day, the second day" and so forth. I read it as literal. Until God tells me different thats what i believe. Which puts the earth at roughly 6000 years old.

 

[Adam]

Let me start what might be aong discussion before you see my point.

Particular, since you give the archeology a lot of credence in regard to the Egyptian artifacts that you hold in enough esteem to find them superior to what is written in the Bible,... consider that the whole Exodus story is clearly connected to the recent archeological discovery of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten.

Evidence?

In his 1939 book Moses and Monotheism Sigmund Freud presented the idea that Crown Prince Thutmose's younger brother Akhenaten was associated with the Biblical character Moses.

This initial supposition is now reinforced by the genetic evidence.

The Jewish priests of today, called Cohans, have been found to be related to one man, their father Aaron, who lived at the same time as this Pharaoh, Akhenaten, or 1352-62AD.

The circumstantial evidence here of timing is not genetic evidence. There is no genetic evidence that ties the Kohanim to the Aaron identified in the Bible. Furthermore, the Kohanim haplotype tree does not e xclude other Jews and even includes non-Jews.

The six marker pattern was given the misnomer "Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH)" under a preconcieved notion that this similarity in related Cohen men was unique to this particular group. Later it was found to be widespread in many communities where men had Y chromosomes which fell into haplogroup J. The genetic evidence you propose is significant to the Kohanim tribe is not specific just to Cohens, nor even just to Jews, but was a survival from the origins of Haplogroup J, about 30,000 years ago.

The argument I present here is that these two ideas, genetics and archeology confirm the Exodus story albeit somewhat metaphorical, and give us a living testimony to all the Egyptology we try to piece together from other diggings that were intended for us to discover.

The evidence you give is circumstantial and tells us nothing about Egypt. There is no testimony except that all Jews are related and that all Jews are related to some Eurpoean non-Jews. Even a full 6/6 match for the 6 marker CMH cannot "prove" Cohen ancestry and has no implications regarding monotheism, Akhenaton, or Aaron.

The Pharaohs who did such a great job of erasing that short period of monotheism and the Age of Amarna as it is now refwerred to by such actions support the embarrassing subordination that Exodus tells us about as Egypt was brought to its knees by one little old man Moses.

So what I am saying is that the Old Testament is actually the end of the story of Egyptology to a large degree, not exclusive from it.

The Exodus story tells us nothing about an age of monotheism. In fact, pharoah's heart is hardened and he rejects God. That quite the opposite of an age of monotheism.

And the OT is absolutely not the end story by any degree.

You have the reunification by the twenty-second dynasty to the Assyrian reign, you have Achaemenid Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt, Roman Egypt...

Historically, Egypt was by no means brought to its knees during the time of Moses.

 

[cupid dave]

From the point of view from an simple country boy. I believe it when the bible says "the first day, the second day" and so forth. I read it as literal. Until God tells me different thats what i believe. Which puts the earth at roughly 6000 years old.

How do you explain that the 24 hour day was not created until Gen 1:14?

Since that is the clear, it seems clear the other 7 "days" could be a 1000 yuears or whatever.



2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.