Recent article by William Lane Craig suggests the historical Adam lived more than 750,000 years ago

[sjastro]

This was literally my point (while at the same time you somehow missed my other points, not sure how that worked), moreover I demonstrated it in incredibly simple language with single sentences easily, but God bless.

I noticed you edited your post to add a condescending tone.
I'll ignore it and state since your now concede numerology is only applicable to Mathew and not Luke, it makes your argument of reconciling Mathew and Luke genealogies using numerology pointless.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I noticed you edited your post to add a condescending tone.
I'll ignore it and state since your now concede numerology is only applicable to Mathew and not Luke, it makes your argument of reconciling Mathew and Luke genealogies using numerology pointless.

There has never been a "concession" as from the beginning it was applied to Matthew alone, the totality of what I said simply being: the reason why Matthew's is shorter is because he artificially reduced the number of generations in order to make his own point with it. He deliberately and intentionally did this, which is all I attempted to show. I do not know if Luke's genealogy is shortened or skips generations although I would not be surprised if it does although it seems to be a more complete attempt at going back through generations recorded in Scripture, but IIRC (I'd have to check this against every genealogy in the OT which I am not going to do at this moment) he also skips things concerning some Kings.

Your idea of "reconciling" is undefined, and if you thought I was trying to say 27 and 42 are the same number you are sorely mistaken as I never said I was trying to do that and nothing in my posts even attempts something like that.

 

[Estrid]

As I said then you said, it's an approximation, so it is not precise.

You are confusing precision and accuracy.

An approximation is alwayscinaccurate.
A precise numbermay be inaccurate,, like 2+2=8 is inaccurate.

Inaccurate numbers in the Bible are a thing.
So what else is only approximately true?

How far from true is close enough?

 

[Estrid]

As I said then you said, it's an approximation, so it is not precise.

You declined to comment on my observation that you
will never find out what really happened in "Noah's" day,
just by reading the Bible.
Any more, I might add, than you will find the true value of
Pi from the 30 cubit circumference and 10 cubit diameter in
kings.
An outside-the- Bible crosscheck is necessary to determine that
Pi= 3.00 is false.
Same with flood. It wasn't till people went outdoors and LO9KED
that they realized it was just a story. Took thousands of years,
but they finally noticed.

 

[Abaxvahl]

You are confusing precision and accuracy.

An approximation is alwayscinaccurate.
A precise numbermay be inaccurate,, like 2+2=8 is inaccurate.

Inaccurate numbers in the Bible are a thing.
So what else is only approximately true?

How far from true is close enough?

The distinction makes sense.

I suppose most numbers concerning wars (deaths, number of soldiers, etc) are approximations, and probably census data, except where it is incredibly specified such as when God told Gideon to take only the men who lapped up water from the river and not the ones who scooped it up with their hands and it was 300, but even that may be. I am not sure.

As for how close is close enough, I do not know.

 

[Estrid]

The distinction makes sense.

I suppose most numbers concerning wars (deaths, number of soldiers, etc) are approximations, and probably census data, except where it is incredibly specified such as when God told Gideon to take only the men who lapped up water from the river and not the ones who scooped it up with their hands and it was 300, but even that may be. I am not sure.

As for how close is close enough, I do not know.

Soldiers always come in multiples of ten, a hundred, a thousand,
even a hundred thousand. Never odd numbers, no 999. No 10,007.

Obviously not accurate.

Anyway, a remarkable concession, rare.
The Bible is not always accurate.
The flood story is not accurate.
What thoughts follow?

 

[Abaxvahl]

You declined to comment on my observation that you
will never find out what really happened in "Noah's" day,
just by reading the Bible.
Any more, I might add, than you will find the true value of
Pi from the 30 cubit circumference and 10 cubit diameter in
kings.
An outside-the- Bible crosscheck is necessary to determine that
Pi= 3.00 is false.
Same with flood. It wasn't till people went outdoors and LO9KED
that they realized it was just a story. Took thousands of years,
but they finally noticed.

I declined to comment on it for I think it is false that one can not learn about the Primordial World from the Scriptures (and the divinely inspired Saints that I mentioned), I in fact think that considering the great evil mankind wrought then and the destruction God brought to creation in it because of that, almost like a factory reset, God's account is the best of accounts, and those who have the mind of Christ see it most clearly. It's an incredible age which I am slowly learning more and more about over time (which makes reading about it more and more sad, truly they were depraved and had a reprobate mind). You and I will likely never see eye-to-eye on that though so I felt no need to comment on it, different paradigms.

 

[Shemjaza]

WLC isn't talking about mEve and yAdam and he allows for the possibility of other ancestors besides Adam and Eve.

(I haven't read the article but I have read his book the article is based on. I've written a review of the book -- it should be out in a week.)

Interesting, I had got the impression that he believed in a literal Adam and Eve, simply pushed back to being Homo heidelbergensis progenitors.

Please link your review to the EvC forum if you decide to promote it publicly.

 

[Abaxvahl]

What thoughts follow?

The Scriptures use approximate counting just like I use approximate counting in my life, which I already knew. That's all that follows in my thoughts. What about you?

 

[Lost4words]

I used to believe in an old earth but, recently i have started to see the truths in a young earth.

On the other hand, if you knew my mates mother in law, you could be persuaded in a very old earth indeed!!

 

[sjastro]

There has never been a "concession" as from the beginning it was applied to Matthew alone, the totality of what I said simply being: the reason why Matthew's is shorter is because he artificially reduced the number of generations in order to make his own point with it. He deliberately and intentionally did this, which is all I attempted to show. I do not know if Luke's genealogy is shortened or skips generations although I would not be surprised if it does although it seems to be a more complete attempt at going back through generations recorded in Scripture, but IIRC (I'd have to check this against every genealogy in the OT which I am not going to do at this moment) he also skips things concerning some Kings.

Your idea of "reconciling" is undefined, and if you thought I was trying to say 27 and 42 are the same number you are sorely mistaken as I never said I was trying to do that and nothing in my posts even attempts something like that.

And this post falls flat on its face because if you considered any of the points made you would never have used a numerological argument to suggest Mathew's and Luke's lists are compatible.
You are now in full blown spin doctoring mode but the end result is you are digging a bigger hole for yourself.

 

[Estrid]

I declined to comment on it for I think it is false that one can not learn about the Primordial World from the Scriptures (and the divinely inspired Saints that I mentioned), I in fact think that considering the great evil mankind wrought then and the destruction God brought to creation in it because of that, almost like a factory reset, God's account is the best of accounts, and those who have the mind of Christ see it most clearly. It's an incredible age which I am slowly learning more and more about over time (which makes reading about it more and more sad, truly they were depraved and had a reprobate mind). You and I will likely never see eye-to-eye on that though so I felt no need to comment on it, different paradigms.

Paradigms is it.

In one "paradigm" there was a world wide flood, and in another there was not?
You really think that is the difference?

The earth on which we actually live never experienced
a world wide flood

 

[sfs]

Interesting, I had got the impression that he believed in a literal Adam and Eve, simply pushed back to being Homo heidelbergensis progenitors.

He is proposing a literal Adam and Eve, the first humans and ancestors of all other humans. But in his model they were not the only two hominins around, and their descendants could have interbred with others not in their line.

 

[Estrid]

I used to believe in an old earth but, recently i have started to see the truths in a young earth.

On the other hand, if you knew my mates mother in law, you could be persuaded in a very old earth indeed!!

"The truths "?

 

[Estrid]

The Scriptures use approximate counting just like I use approximate counting in my life, which I already knew. That's all that follows in my thoughts. What about you?

I'm not so easily sstisfied.
One question follows another till I see where it goes.

 

[Abaxvahl]

And this post falls flat on its face because if you considered any of the points made you would never have used a numerological argument to suggest Mathew's and Luke's lists are compatible.
You are now in full blown spin doctoring mode but the end result is you are digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Baruch HaShem.

 

[Shemjaza]

He is proposing a literal Adam and Eve, the first humans and ancestors of all other humans. But in his model they were not the only two hominins around, and their descendants could have interbred with others not in their line.

That is an extremely strange way of looking at the world.

I'm curious if his version of Adam and Eve were special because they were created for the Garden, or they were special because they could comprehend and intuit morality after the apple.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I'm not so easily sstisfied.
One question follows another till I see where it goes.

What would your next question be? I also like to reach the end-points of things, the edges of knowledge and questions can be a pretty cool thing to dwell on.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Paradigms is it.

In one "paradigm" there was a world wide flood, and in another there was not?
You really think that is the difference?

The earth on which we actually live never experienced
a world wide flood

No, a difference of paradigms is a complete worldview difference, the fundamental ways of interpreting reality being different between them.

 

[Estrid]

What would your next question be? I also like to reach the end-points of things, the edges of knowledge and questions can be a pretty cool thing to dwell on.

Oh? A good line of questions for you might start with
whether there should be physical evidence of the "flood",
what sort of evidence, whether there is any, on what basis you'd
believe or not believe, what resources you would refer to,
whether you are capable of objectivity and an evidenced "paradigm shift",
Where your thoughts go next if you realize that "flood" is just a story.
what else is just a story, where the valid and true is and what it's based on...

Why would you even ask? Question after question is so obvious!