Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As the article says, it's not a salvation issue, it's an authority issue. Upon what does one base one's salvation? Feeling? Knowledge? Conviction?Interesting article from AIG, thought you might like it:
https://answersingenesis.org/theory...of-years/millions-of-yearsare-souls-at-stake/
Any comments?
(If you can't open the link let me know and I'll post the text)
It best be all three. Discussions of genealogies, ancient manuscripts, etc., are really pretty much irrelevant to the bottom line.
And you don't see how that is true?I think my discussion points about the genealogies across the manuscripts are very relevant to the bottom line. The article suggest that though it wasn't a salvation issue, not believing in an approx 6,000 year old earth means that one has a problem with the authority of the bible.
The problem with that viewpoint is that it plays fairly fast and loose with the facts. It is obvious that the exact age of the fathers at the time their sons were born and the life they lived afterwards is decisively laid out in Genesis chapter five from Adam to Noah. You assume gaps from Noah forward, but there are none. The Flood last three days shy of 14 months. Genesis 11:10ff goes from Shem to Abram; Genesis 21:5 states that Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born; Genesis 25:8 states that Isaac was 60 when Jacob and Esau were born, and Genesis 47:9 says that Jacob was 130 when he went to Egypt. That gets us to 2,298 years after the Creation, plus an uncertainty of 23 years total, because we don't know if the fathers' sons were born early, or late, in the year given as their age for those births. So Jacob's arrival in Egypt could be as late as 2,321 years after Creation.My points undermine that sort of attitude by pointing out a problem with some assumptions about the bible teaching a ~6,000 year old earth. So, at least for some of those who don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth, it's not an authority issue at all.
Actually, as I've just shown you, we can be certain within 50 years, and likely a lot less. So yes, it is important to understand what the Bible is saying, and it is saying the Earth is not old at all.For those, it's an issue with understanding what the bible is saying. For the bible to be authoritative, it's rather important to understand it correctly. It's impossible to get a 6000 year old earth without the genealogies being literal historical claims like we would find in a textbook.
The problem with that viewpoint is that it plays fairly fast and loose with the facts.
You assume gaps from Noah forward, but there are none.
Does your statement about ancient manuscripts being irrelevant to the bottom line apply throughout the Bible or only to this genealogical issue?As the article says, it's not a salvation issue, it's an authority issue. Upon what does one base one's salvation? Feeling? Knowledge? Conviction?
It best be all three. Discussions of genealogies, ancient manuscripts, etc., are really pretty much irrelevant to the bottom line.
There are many who have gone before you who have investigated the genealogies of the Bible. Some will agree with you and some will disagree. One thing we are sure of: Nowhere in the Bible does it state the exact age of the universe.
For a view that opposes where you are heading, see 'The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?'
Why are you trying to do the maths of the genealogies again when others have pointed out the gaps in the records?
Why do you use the language, 'i would guess'? That doesn't sound too definitive for you to say that 'That is Biblical fact'.
Now present us with the facts to demonstrate that the MSS of the OT disagree on the genealogies. To this point we only have your assertions and not evidence.I have been presented with the facts that the manuscripts of the OT do not agree on the genealogies and those differences don't seem to be insignificant scribal error. What is your solution to the different genealogies?
From the Masoretic Text perhaps. What about the Septuagint, Samaritan Penteteuch, and Targums? Do those have the same numbers/genealogies? To save the trouble - no they don't.
The genealogies in Genesis are not to be taken as a historical sort of claim. They are rather to be understood as theological statements that highlight specific things important in Israel's history.
Given that the Septuagint is a Greek translation from the Hebrew, and the Hebrew has no numeric characters, using a Hebrew letter to represent a number, it is no wonder the Septuagint has exactly a 100-year error in the birth dates of the patriarchs. It is to be dismissed as being inaccurate.Which facts are we talking about? The Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Samaritan Penteteuch, or some other source?
Simply because I anticipate what your next argument will be if this one proves incorrect.No, I don't. It seems you don't understand my argument and are stuck arguing against points made by other people.
They are not "facts" but poorly researched assumptions. I don't mean to insult you, as you say you have been "presented" with this alleged facts, meaning you didn't do the work yourself. Perhaps you should consider doing so.I have been presented with the facts that the manuscripts of the OT do not agree on the genealogies and those differences don't seem to be insignificant scribal error. What is your solution to the different genealogies?
I have seen it before. That is why I know the answer to it.I think my point is somewhat unique - I haven't seen it used before. So we're going to have to set aside arguments other people use and deal with what I'm saying.
I think my discussion points about the genealogies across the manuscripts are very relevant to the bottom line. The article suggest that though it wasn't a salvation issue, not believing in an approx 6,000 year old earth means that one has a problem with the authority of the bible. My points undermine that sort of attitude by pointing out a problem with some assumptions about the bible teaching a ~6,000 year old earth. So, at least for some of those who don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth, it's not an authority issue at all. For those, it's an issue with understanding what the bible is saying. For the bible to be authoritative, it's rather important to understand it correctly. It's impossible to get a 6000 year old earth without the genealogies being literal historical claims like we would find in a textbook.
Why did you invent what I do not believe and what I did not say? I also believe the Bible is the Word of God and is inerrant in the original MSS. I have never stated nor inferred that the Bible has errors. Please do not make false accusations about my view.Aww see but I believe the Bible is the Word of God and is with out error, now you are trying to say the Bible has errors. You can not call your self a Christian and say the Bible contains errors, either it is the Word of God with out error or it is not, that simple.
Why did you invent what I do not believe and what I did not say? I also believe the Bible is the Word of God and is inerrant in the original MSS. I have never stated nor inferred that the Bible has errors. Please do not make false accusations about my view.
And so you say I can't call myself a Christian because of your false claims against me.
What are we debating here? We are discussing the genealogies in the OT. I presented you with a link to show that others before you have tried to show that the genealogies of the OT are not complete: 'The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?' That does NOT MAKE them in error. They are what God has given us and they give information that will not support an attempt to get a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. There are inerrant genealogies but there are not genealogies given for every family from Adam to Jesus.
Please apologise for your false accusations against me.
Oz
This is what you said about me and my belief in the Bible and my being a Christian at #26:False so you are not say Genealogies in the Bible are incorrect, do you concede that the Bible is with out error including the genealogy?
and I did not say you could not call your self a Christian that is half truths I said you can't say there are errors in the Bible and call there self a christian.
Aww see but I believe the Bible is the Word of God and is with out error, now you are trying to say the Bible has errors. You can not call your self a Christian and say the Bible contains errors, either it is the Word of God with out error or it is not, that simple.
ThisBrotherOfHis said:Given that the Septuagint is a Greek translation from the Hebrew, and the Hebrew has no numeric characters, using a Hebrew letter to represent a number, it is no wonder the Septuagint has exactly a 100-year error in the birth dates of the patriarchs. It is to be dismissed as being inaccurate.
The Samaritan Pentateuch is extremely ancient, containing only the first five books Moses wrote, and therefore does not have the extensive chronologies and genealogies the other set of manuscripts have.
It is accurate, but does not contain the entire Israelite genealogy as displayed in the Masoretic Text.
The latter is typically called "The Hebrew Text" because it is the one maintained so excruciatingly and agonizingly accurate by Hebrew scribes. They marked scrolls with an indicator of the exact center of each book, and counted backwards and forwards numerous times to assure the proper number of characters were included, and proofread the manuscripts to such an extent as to make a New York publisher blush from shame for not being as accurate.
I don't mean to insult you, as you say you have been "presented" with this alleged facts, meaning you didn't do the work yourself.
MOD HAT ON
Take a breather, folks...
The Statement of Faith for this forum includes the following so please do not debate against it:
Given their divine origins, the Scriptures are without error as originally given.
MOD HAT OFF
This is what you said about me and my belief in the Bible and my being a Christian at #26:
Nothing I've brought up challenges that. We're getting to what the originals (1) said and (2) meant. The Masoretic Text was not the original.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?