How old is the universe?

[gluadys]

The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are quite important, since the Messiah was required to be from the root of Jesse (descended from David) in order to fulfill that portion of messianic prophecy. Matthew's geneology is of Jeses' legal heritage through Joseph [though not Jesus' actual father, Joseph was the legal father], while Luke traces the line through Mary. Both Mary and Joseph were descended from David. Thus, either way, that part of the prophecy was fulfilled.

Since the bible doesn't give us any of this information about the two geneologies, where does this information come from and how do you know it is reliable?

 

[herev]

The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are quite important, since the Messiah was required to be from the root of Jesse (descended from David) in order to fulfill that portion of messianic prophecy. Matthew's geneology is of Jeses' legal heritage through Joseph [though not Jesus' actual father, Joseph was the legal father], while Luke traces the line through Mary. Both Mary and Joseph were descended from David. Thus, either way, that part of the prophecy was fulfilled.

could you please point me to a scripture in Luke's geneology (Luke 3:23-38) that tells us this is Mary's ancestry? I've heard this forever, but it doesn't say that, does it? Luke 3:23 starts the geneology with Jesus--the son of Joseph (not Mary--she's not mentioned here)

 

[Sinai]

could you please point me to a scripture in Luke's geneology (Luke 3:23-38) that tells us this is Mary's ancestry? I've heard this forever, but it doesn't say that, does it? Luke 3:23 starts the geneology with Jesus--the son of Joseph (not Mary--she's not mentioned here)

Sorry. I am on a trip at the moment, and am away from my Bible notes and commentaries--and will soon be away from access to computers as well. I will try to remember to get this information for you when I get back (about the end of July) if you are interested.

 

[datan]

I think the universe is very old; but I don't have any clue how to go about measuring that.

 

[KennySe]

I think the universe is very old; but I don't have any clue how to go about measuring that.

Cut it in half and count the rings.

 

[Dark_Adonis]

I think the universe is very old; but I don't have any clue how to go about measuring that.

Oh that is quite fun... You look at the model currently used and you see that there is an assumption that the universe is expanding, we can set a lower bound by assuming that the universe isn't accelerating. We then use this to make a scale factor of the universe, a. Next we see that da/dt*distance/(a*distance)=v/r=H
then we see that r/v=t thus 1/H=t...
Where H is Hubble's constant. We can use some stellar phenomena that we know works like clockwork (I seem to recall intensity of standard candles) mix it with the observed red-shift to find the distance and bam! We can calculate the minimal age of the universe...

Just in case you wanted to do it yourself, well from knowing H:
Here it is

Almost forgot the most important step: Make sure you do the magic physics elf dance, otherwise the whole thing is scrapped...

 

[Treasure the Questions]

What the writers were doing (using a common technique of the time) was connecting Christ by association to the Royal line of David, because that was the most important line from which the Messiah was said to come. There would have been no way of checking its historicity, and nobody would have bothered to check it, because it was the symbolic meaning that was important - and the fact that Christ was, like everyone else, (that, in otherwords, he was "like us in all things" except sin) a "child of Adam" was also important to establish to make his redemption possible.

Are you sure about that Arty? It's just that in my evangelical days I was taught by a fairly conservative outfit that genealogical lists had been kept at the temple, so that until it was destroyed in 70 AD the Jews were able to check out their family trees. Which meant that those gospel writers who give up Jesus' genealogy were using reliable sources of information with which those who knew him and his family would have been familiar.

Surely you're not saying those naughty people made that up, are you Arty?

Karin

 

[Treasure the Questions]

could you please point me to a scripture in Luke's geneology (Luke 3:23-38) that tells us this is Mary's ancestry? I've heard this forever, but it doesn't say that, does it? Luke 3:23 starts the geneology with Jesus--the son of Joseph (not Mary--she's not mentioned here)

The reason I was given, by the Bible Study Fellowship, was that because Luke says Joseph son of Heli and not son of Jacob as Matthew does, they assumed Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli and so Heli was Mary's dad.

Of course this assumes Jacob wasn't also known as Heli.

Karin

 

[artybloke]

Are you sure about that Arty? It's just that in my evangelical days I was taught by a fairly conservative outfit that genealogical lists had been kept at the temple, so that until it was destroyed in 70 AD the Jews were able to check out their family trees. Which meant that those gospel writers who give up Jesus' genealogy were using reliable sources of information with which those who knew him and his family would have been familiar.

Surely you're not saying those naughty people made that up, are you Arty?

Karin

1) Is there any actual evidence that they did this? Apart from what your (fairly conservative) teachers told you?

2) Any records would have been on papyrus scrolls, no doubt; which can last a long time, if they don't ever come in contact with a naked flame. Have any of these scrolls been found?

3) Let's just say that genealogies - especially of kings - served a political purpose in the ancient world. Some of it would no doubt be quite accurate - but as the monarchy would wish us to believe there's been a king of England since Arthur (despite his probable mythical status) I wouldn't put my trust in them as factual.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

1) Is there any actual evidence that they did this? Apart from what your (fairly conservative) teachers told you?

Do I take it you are not aware of any? I don't think they supplied much evidence to back this up. I think it was simply presented as a fact.

2) Any records would have been on papyrus scrolls, no doubt; which can last a long time, if they don't ever come in contact with a naked flame. Have any of these scrolls been found?

I haven't heard of it.

Let's just say that genealogies - especially of kings - served a political purpose in the ancient world. Some of it would no doubt be quite accurate - but as the monarchy would wish us to believe there's been a king of England since Arthur (despite his probable mythical status) I wouldn't put my trust in them as factual.

Point taken.

Thanks Arty.

 

[gluadys]

The reason I was given, by the Bible Study Fellowship, was that because Luke says Joseph son of Heli and not son of Jacob as Matthew does, they assumed Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli and so Heli was Mary's dad.

Of course this assumes Jacob wasn't also known as Heli.

Karin

And it assumes that Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph. Why would it not be equally valid to assume that Luke correctly identified Joseph's father and that Jacob is his father-in-law?

 

[gluadys]

Are you sure about that Arty? It's just that in my evangelical days I was taught by a fairly conservative outfit that genealogical lists had been kept at the temple, so that until it was destroyed in 70 AD the Jews were able to check out their family trees. Which meant that those gospel writers who give up Jesus' genealogy were using reliable sources of information with which those who knew him and his family would have been familiar.

Surely you're not saying those naughty people made that up, are you Arty?

Karin

What about the times the temple was destroyed (in whole or in part) prior to AD70.

Surely any written genealogies stored in the temple prior to Nebuchadnezzer's conquest were destroyed with the first temple.

And can we be sure any survived the take-over of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes for the Zeus cult?

Even if we accept that genealogies were stored in the temple in the first century CE---how old and how accurate could they be? Would they not have had to be reconstituted, in many cases, from oral memory?

 

[Treasure the Questions]

And it assumes that Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph. Why would it not be equally valid to assume that Luke correctly identified Joseph's father and that Jacob is his father-in-law?

Probably because it would muck up their theory.

Karin

 

[Treasure the Questions]

What about the times the temple was destroyed (in whole or in part) prior to AD70.

Surely any written genealogies stored in the temple prior to Nebuchadnezzer's conquest were destroyed with the first temple.

And can we be sure any survived the take-over of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes for the Zeus cult?

Even if we accept that genealogies were stored in the temple in the first century CE---how old and how accurate could they be? Would they not have had to be reconstituted, in many cases, from oral memory?

Yup. It's all very logical really. I don't know if you know how the Bible Fellowship works, but they give you lots of homework, which consists of Bible passages to read and a long list of questions to answer every day. The gives the student the impression they are thinking for themselves, but in fact the questions are often loaded and the teaching session that follows gives you lots of information, but you have no time to consider it's reliability because you have to get down to the next week's questions, and most people have enough trouble finding time to do them. You could do them in half an hour if you didn't think much.

I left three years ago and am still coming across stuff I was "taught" and haven't properly considered.

Karin

 

[artybloke]

I think glaudys makes a valid point - not just about this - but about ancient history generally. Aside from the fact that there was no such thing as a "disinterested" point of view in the ancient world (the winners tended to write the accounts to make them look good), the documentary evidence for many events would have been patchy to say the least, and easily destroyed, even supposing the events were written about at the time. Chroniclers were also often poets, and paid to tell a good story. There's no reason to say that the early history of Isreal was any different from the surrounding nations.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

I think glaudys makes a valid point - not just about this - but about ancient history generally. Aside from the fact that there was no such thing as a "disinterested" point of view in the ancient world (the winners tended to write the accounts to make them look good), the documentary evidence for many events would have been patchy to say the least, and easily destroyed, even supposing the events were written about at the time. Chroniclers were also often poets, and paid to tell a good story. There's no reason to say that the early history of Isreal was any different from the surrounding nations.

I don't doubt that is true. I read a very interesting book called "The Owl and the Stereo: an introduction to radical Christianity", by David Osborne, which explained that quite well in respect to "history" in the Bible: it's history, but not as we know it.

Karin