Dating the creation of Adam

[Research2]

where in the geneologies do they say how old the patriarchs were when their sons were born

It does this throughout Genesis chapter 5, for example -

Genesis 5: 3

''When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth''

 

[Papias]

Genesis 5: 3

''When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth''

Wow, back then genetics worked differently, and females made no genetic contribution! Them ova were plain hollow.

Papias

 

[Blackwater Babe]

It does this throughout Genesis chapter 5, for example -

Genesis 5: 3

''When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth''

Not in any Bible version I ever read, but OK.

So does it do that for all the patriarchs?

Are they using the Gregorian 365.25 day year, the Julian 365 day one, or the Babylonian 360 day one, just out of interest?

 

[Research2]

Not in any Bible version I ever read, but OK.

So does it do that for all the patriarchs?

Are they using the Gregorian 365.25 day year, the Julian 365 day one, or the Babylonian 360 day one, just out of interest?

The Hebrew lunar year is 354 days + 11.2425 days at appropiate intervals to match the solar year (365.2425 days).

It doesn't really make a difference though if the years used were 360 (Babylonian), 365 (Julian) or 365.25, since at the most when you calculate the differences going back to the creation of Adam, the difference is only a few months or years.

There is no successful way of trying to remove the rough date Adam was created from scripture. The only people who try to find reasons are evolutionists who of course don't take the genealogies seriously because their worldview is very different, for starters they believe man is around 200,000 years old, but Genesis is impossible to stretch that far for Adam.

 

[Papias]

Research2 wrote:

There is no successful way of trying to remove the rough date Adam was created from scripture. The only people who try to find reasons are evolutionists who of course don't take the genealogies seriously because their worldview is very different, for starters they believe man is around 200,000 years old, but Genesis is impossible to stretch that far for Adam.

Or old earth creationists?

The scripture itself "removes the rough date Adam was created" by showing that the geneologies are symbolic, not literal. The text itself shows they are symbolic because there are three different geneolgies given for the same person, and they contradict each other if interpreted literally. Those three are in 1 Cr, Mt and Lk. Thus either they are symbolic, or the scripture is incoherent. Due to my faith, I don't see the scripture as incoherent, and so conclude that the geneologies are symbolic, like so much else in the scripture.
.

Papias

 

[ghendricks63]

Research2 wrote:



Or old earth creationists?

The scripture itself "removes the rough date Adam was created" by showing that the geneologies are symbolic, not literal. The text itself shows they are symbolic because there are three different geneolgies given for the same person, and they contradict each other if interpreted literally. Those three are in 1 Cr, Mt and Lk. Thus either they are symbolic, or the scripture is incoherent. Due to my faith, I don't see the scripture as incoherent, and so conclude that the geneologies are symbolic, like so much else in the scripture.
.

Papias

 

[Research2]

Research2 wrote:



Or old earth creationists?

The scripture itself "removes the rough date Adam was created" by showing that the geneologies are symbolic, not literal. The text itself shows they are symbolic because there are three different geneolgies given for the same person, and they contradict each other if interpreted literally. Those three are in 1 Cr, Mt and Lk. Thus either they are symbolic, or the scripture is incoherent. Due to my faith, I don't see the scripture as incoherent, and so conclude that the geneologies are symbolic, like so much else in the scripture.
.

Papias

So then according to you, Jesus never existed since the geneaology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is just symbolism...

 

[Blackwater Babe]

So then according to you, Jesus never existed since the geneaology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is just symbolism...

Jesus existed, but Adam is metaphorical. I have no explanation you will like for the geneology in Matthew.

 

[Research2]

Jesus existed, but Adam is metaphorical. I have no explanation you will like for the geneology in Matthew.

So who were the ancestors of Jesus?

Luke 3: 23 says Jesus was the son of Joseph. Do you not believe that?

We then have the rest of his ancestry from Joseph, going all the way back to King David, to Adam.

I guess you also don't believe King David existed (despite the fact archeological inscriptions has proven he did...).

 

[Blackwater Babe]

So who were the ancestors of Jesus?

Luke 3: 23 says Jesus was the son of Joseph. Do you not believe that?

We then have the rest of his ancestry from Joseph, going all the way back to King David, to Adam.

I guess you also don't believe King David existed (despite the fact archeological inscriptions has proven he did...).

Um, well no, I don't believe Jesus was the son of Joseph. He was the son of God. Joseph was his step father, sure, but not his father.

Thats actually a fairly significant plot pot in the whole deal, actually. I wonder what else you missed?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

But that aside, just because a geneology mentions actual historical people, doesn't actually make the geneology accurate.

But hey, I have no problem with the idea that Joseph was a decendant of David. But somewhere in all those geneology, fact trades place with family legend, then myth.

There was no Adam.

 

[ghendricks63]

So who were the ancestors of Jesus?

Luke 3: 23 says Jesus was the son of Joseph. Do you not believe that?

We then have the rest of his ancestry from Joseph, going all the way back to King David, to Adam.

I guess you also don't believe King David existed (despite the fact archeological inscriptions has proven he did...).

I am intrigued by your line of reasoning. Your tag line says you are an old Earth creationist. If this is true then you must not accept the geneologies either. And surely you have compared them at some point and found them to be wildly off both in names and in generation count right?

 

[ghendricks63]

So who were the ancestors of Jesus?

Luke 3: 23 says Jesus was the son of Joseph. Do you not believe that?

We then have the rest of his ancestry from Joseph, going all the way back to King David, to Adam.

I guess you also don't believe King David existed (despite the fact archeological inscriptions has proven he did...).

You need to read Luke 3:23 again.

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

The phrase "so it was thought" is clearly indicating that Jesus did not have an earthly father in the physical sense.

 

[Papias]

Research2 wrote:

So then according to you, Jesus never existed since the geneaology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is just symbolism...

Um..... no, I never said that.

You didn't answer as to what you think the meaning behind the fact that the three geneologies disagree with each other is. Look, I know we disagree on some things (like the origin of skin color), and agree on other things (like YEC being incorrect). Regardless of any of that, I think we can agree that the Bible has plenty of symbolism - especially when Jesus is concerned - and that the geneologies don't literally agree with each other, right?

From there, we may see the impact of those facts differently. I've stated my view. If you don't want to state yours, that's OK.

Papias

P. S. - thanks for the smiles, ghendricks63!

 

[Research2]

Um, well no, I don't believe Jesus was the son of Joseph. He was the son of God. Joseph was his step father, sure, but not his father.

Thats actually a fairly significant plot pot in the whole deal, actually. I wonder what else you missed?

Actually the Epistle to the Romans is very clear Joseph was the physical father of Jesus, and that Jesus was from the line of David.

Romans 1: 3 -

''concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh'' - Young's Literal Translation

''About his Son who, in the flesh, came from the family of David''
- Bible in Basic English

However i'm sure this topic can be debated in a more relevant thread.

Its however clear that you are just cherry picking who to historically believe in, while the rest you consider ''mythical''. For example, you accept Joseph and King David existed but not the early patriarchs, i don't see the logic behind this, because where do you draw the line between 'historical' and 'mythical'. Also if you are calling certain figures mythical, that means you are rejecting most books of the Old Testament.

 

[Research2]

I am intrigued by your line of reasoning. Your tag line says you are an old Earth creationist. If this is true then you must not accept the geneologies either. And surely you have compared them at some point and found them to be wildly off both in names and in generation count right?

The Adamic race is around 10,000 years old, as the geneologies in Genesis state. The other races are hundreds of thousands or millions of years old, see my polygenist thread.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Actually the Epistle to the Romans is very clear Joseph was the physical father of Jesus, and that Jesus was from the line of David.

Romans 1: 3 -

''concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh'' - Young's Literal Translation

''About his Son who, in the flesh, came from the family of David''
- Bible in Basic English

That would go against one of the most basic aspects of Christianity: Jesus was the son of God.

Matthew 1:18-19: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. (KJV)
​

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary had not yet had sex with Joseph, as they were not married - hence why Joseph was surprised that we was pregant and planned to quietly break the engagement off. Similarly Luke 1:34-35 says that Mary questioned how she could become pregnant, seeing how she was a virgin, and Gabriel explained that she would conceive with the Holy Spirit.

But yes, that's a topic for another thread.

 

[ghendricks63]

The Adamic race is around 10,000 years old, as the geneologies in Genesis state. The other races are hundreds of thousands or millions of years old, see my polygenist thread.

So you accept the timeline of the Adamic race just not the creation account. Strangely enough I am not troubled by that as I accept that these individuals likely lived in history. I realize that there must be errors in the sequence and/or some of the individuals along the way to account for the vast differences in the recorded geneologies though. I suspect that since the oral tradition of their geneology went back to a man called Adam...that they probably either merged their creation story with it or simple assumed it must be referring to Adam since that was as far back as their history was known.

I am much more troubled by your claim that Joseph was the "physical" father of Jesus. The virgin birth is paramount to most Christians and is spoken of clearly in scripture as already pointed out by notedstrangeperson. In light of this your charge of "cherry picking" in this thread seems out of place.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Actually the Epistle to the Romans is very clear Joseph was the physical father of Jesus, and that Jesus was from the line of David.

Romans 1: 3 -

''concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh'' - Young's Literal Translation

''About his Son who, in the flesh, came from the family of David''
- Bible in Basic English

However i'm sure this topic can be debated in a more relevant thread.

One about Arianism, perhaps?

Its however clear that you are just cherry picking who to historically believe in, while the rest you consider ''mythical''. For example, you accept Joseph and King David existed but not the early patriarchs, i don't see the logic behind this, because where do you draw the line between 'historical' and 'mythical'. Also if you are calling certain figures mythical, that means you are rejecting most books of the Old Testament.

Nope, I'm basing who to believe in on archaeology and logic. As far back as Moses, I'm happy to accept the line of patriarchs more or less represent vaguely historical figures. Prior to that? well, its all just a bit vague, with borrowings from other religious traditions, and characters from myth and legend being amalgamated and split apart. Oh, I'm sure many of them are based on folk memories of actual events, but I don't believe much in the OT is actual text book history, and less and less is the further back you go.

Look, you're absolutely free to believe whatever you like, but don't get all smug because you think you've got all the answers. I asure you, there are about a million Biblical scholars, much more inteligent than you or I, who will disagree with both our beliefs and have far better philosophical, theological and exegistical reasons for doing so than our humble laymen opinions.

 

[Research2]

That would go against one of the most basic aspects of Christianity: Jesus was the son of God.

Matthew 1:18-19: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. (KJV)
​

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary had not yet had sex with Joseph, as they were not married - hence why Joseph was surprised that we was pregant and planned to quietly break the engagement off. Similarly Luke 1:34-35 says that Mary questioned how she could become pregnant, seeing how she was a virgin, and Gabriel explained that she would conceive with the Holy Spirit.

But yes, that's a topic for another thread.

Genesis 6: 4 mentions ''sons (plural) of God'' (Sethites)
Luke 3: 38 describes Adam as the son of God.
etc.

Jesus was not the only son of God, everyone who descends from Adam is a ''son of God''. Jesus in the physical sense was no different to any other descendant of Adam, and was just an ordinary mortal man.

Romans 8: 3 describes Jesus as a man ''of sinful flesh'', while the Book of Matthew Jesus calls ordinary men his ''brethren'', i.e he was of the same stock. The only difference between Jesus and all others, is that he never himself sinned.