Biblical age inflation (passed over elsewhere)

Thank you for posting that, Deamiter. It brought some new facts to light for me that I was not previously aware of.

That's really interesting. I've never been sure how to interpret biblical chronologies.

Interesting article. It makes a number of assumptions that I would disagree with - but its consistent with its own worldview.

The primary points of disagreement for me would be
1) The hebrew culture was not the same as other ANE cultures. They were specifically called out by God to be different and always ran into trouble whenever they moved toward the other ones.

2) The article uses a non-global flood chronology.

3) I see the Scriptures as more authoritative and accurate.

4) While it is not specifically said, the most reasonable explanation to me is that Adam and Eve had perfect DNA, which had mutations over time.

Its interesting to note that Methuselah died the year the flood started. Some have interpreted his name as meaning that when he dies the judgment would be sent -- and that his age represents the forbearance of God.

laptoppop said:

Interesting article. It makes a number of assumptions that I would disagree with - but its consistent with its own worldview.

The primary points of disagreement for me would be
1) The hebrew culture was not the same as other ANE cultures. They were specifically called out by God to be different and always ran into trouble whenever they moved toward the other ones.

2) The article uses a non-global flood chronology.

3) I see the Scriptures as more authoritative and accurate.

4) While it is not specifically said, the most reasonable explanation to me is that Adam and Eve had perfect DNA, which had mutations over time.

Its interesting to note that Methuselah died the year the flood started. Some have interpreted his name as meaning that when he dies the judgment would be sent -- and that his age represents the forbearance of God.

Click to expand...

Well, Pop, you just need the cultural context to know that "Be ye seperate" really meant, "be full of it just like your neighbors, but give your God a different name."

I agree. The point of the BIble was to make a distinction in culture, among many other things!

Couldn't you say that the story of Isaac was really a euphemism for actual child sacrifice, for which Abraham was rewarded by a really nice ram, which he traded for the "services" of a friendly professional who bore him another Isaac. It fits the culture, no? (Hoping the TEs can laugh along with me. I know that's a bit over the top.)

Thanks for the link! I'll read it when I can...

laptoppop said:

Interesting article. It makes a number of assumptions that I would disagree with - but its consistent with its own worldview.

The primary points of disagreement for me would be
1) The hebrew culture was not the same as other ANE cultures. They were specifically called out by God to be different and always ran into trouble whenever they moved toward the other ones.

2) The article uses a non-global flood chronology.

3) I see the Scriptures as more authoritative and accurate.

4) While it is not specifically said, the most reasonable explanation to me is that Adam and Eve had perfect DNA, which had mutations over time.

Its interesting to note that Methuselah died the year the flood started. Some have interpreted his name as meaning that when he dies the judgment would be sent -- and that his age represents the forbearance of God.

Click to expand...

There is no question that the Hebrews used the existing literary mechanisms of the world around them. For instance, Solomon's wisdom literature follows a common format used in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Apocalypses (like Daniel, etc) were a popular format at the time in many cultures. It does follow that the authors used conventions familiar to them, using terms that were meaningful to them. When we understand that context we more understand what the original intent of the scriptures is.

Also, holding the scriptures as more "authoritative and accurate" only holds when we're reading the scripture as it was meant to be read. If God didn't mean for the numbers to refer to actual ages, then they don't, and that shouldn't affect our faith.

What color eyes does "perfect" DNA yield? Is brown more perfect than blue? What color skin? How thick or curly was their hair? Were their big toes longer than their second toes?

How does one decide what is "perfect" DNA? Could we, hypothetically, decide who is more genetically "pure" than whom?

laptoppop said:

The primary points of disagreement for me would be
1) The hebrew culture was not the same as other ANE cultures. They were specifically called out by God to be different and always ran into trouble whenever they moved toward the other ones.

Click to expand...

But do you have evidence for this? For the fact that the Israelites actually got in trouble with idolatry from the surrounding nations shows that they weren't that different.

Suppose we transported New York back in time to Canaan to be next-door neighbors to the Amalekites. The Amalekites try to seduce them into following Baal and Ashtoreth. What happens?

The Amalekites try to show the Americans rituals and offerings that can be used to appease the fertility gods and bring rain and bounty. But the Americans won't have any of it since they know the scientific bases of rain and soil chemistry. In fact, most of the New Yorkers won't be able to identify with it at all since few of them actually do any real life farming.

The Amalekites try to seduce the Americans into idol-worship through their prostitutes and sexual advances. But the New Yorkers are used to free sex anyways; they don't see anything that specifically relates to Baal and Ashtoreth in the Amalekites' sexual advances, and so they just frolic and have a good time without moving an inch closer to idol-worship.

Finally, the Amalekites in desperation sacrifice a child to try to convince the gods to show a miraculous sign to the unbelieving Americans. But that's the final straw: the New Yorkers' culture is one where children are "cute" and considered an important demographic in society especially in terms of their consumeristic power. They get turned off and wander away.

See? If the Israelites had really been so different from the surrounding cultures, there would have been no way they would have learned idol-worship from them. There would have been no risk of assimilation if they weren't already similar, even after being called by God. Think of the Torah with its rules and regulations. While their theological concepts are revolutionary, none of them reference any scientific, historical, or cultural aspect that was different from their neighbors'. In fact, they bear such similarity that the Bible student often has to learn some of the culture of the Canaanites to fully understand some of the injunctions (for example, the idea of something being "devoted to the Lord" - and then destroyed!) that the Israelites had.

And there is plenty of textual evidence suggesting that the Israelites were to a large degree culturally similar (even if theologically separate) with their neighbors, as Crawfish has suggested. Ironically, a lot of it comes from the Bible.

laptoppop said:

The primary points of disagreement for me would be
1) The hebrew culture was not the same as other ANE cultures. They were specifically called out by God to be different and always ran into trouble whenever they moved toward the other ones.

Click to expand...

The Hebrews were different but still the same in many respects to the other cultures in the area. Yes, many of the Laws, especially the Sabbath, are to set them apart from other peoples. However, it is clear that the Hebrew culture shared many traits with the surrounding cultures. For instance, altho worship of other gods is forbidden, in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, those gods are treated as existing. The Hebrews were obviously familiar with the culture of that worship, because they backslide into it!

The Noah stories (yes, there are 2 weaved together in Genesis 6-8) are adapted from the Unt-napushtim story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Genesis 1 is structured to refute the Babylonian gods in the order they appear in the Enuma Elish. For Genesis 1 to be understood, the people had to be familiar with the Enuma Elish.

Also, the Hebrews share customs of marriage, hospitality, etc. with the surrounding peoples.

2) The article uses a non-global flood chronology.

Click to expand...

So? it has been conclusively demonstrated that there never was a global flood.

3) I see the Scriptures as more authoritative and accurate.

Click to expand...

Define "authoritative" and "accurate". Authoritative in what matters? What type of accuracy? Accurate theology or completely accurate in all areas?

4) While it is not specifically said, the most reasonable explanation to me is that Adam and Eve had perfect DNA, which had mutations over time.

Click to expand...

Doesn't work. First, there is no such thing as "perfect" DNA. "perfect" how? Second, if their DNA was "perfect" then each of them had to have identical DNA, didn't they? That being the case, there is no possibility of the wide variations among humans now. It's simple to do the Mendelian genetics.