Millions of Years- a salvation issue?

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

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)

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.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It best be all three. Discussions of genealogies, ancient manuscripts, etc., are really pretty much irrelevant to the bottom line.

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.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

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.

And you don't see how that is true?

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.

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.

Exodus 12:40 says that Israel was in Egypt for 430 years. This harmonizes well withGenesis 15:13, where God tells Abram that his descendants will be enslaved and mistreated for 400 years. Many have rebelled at that number, saying 400 doesn't equal 430, and they are right. But enslavement did not happen on their arrival in Egypt but some time after Joseph died. Whoever succeeded the Pharoah who made Joseph prime minister of Egypt felt threatened by the increasing numbers of the Israelites. So the Exodus happened between 2,801 and 2,824 years after the Creation.

We have a clear statement in 1 Kings that allows us to continue a reliable chronology. It is stated in 1 Kings 6:1 that “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.” So if we subtract 124 years (40 each for the wandering in the desert, 40 for Saul’s reign, 40 for David’s reign and four for the portion of Solomon's reign before he started the Temple, we get a period of about 356 years for the judges, which fits well with the numbers in Judges if we assume a few overlaps, as are evident. Solomon began to build the Temple 3,208 years after the Creation. Notice that even though we’re thousands of years into history at this point, the uncertainty about the dates is less than 25 years. Not much comfort for any who want there to be thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years from Creation to Christ.

We know, in taking into account the co-regencies of the kings of Judah, that it was 345 years from the Temple to the Exile of Judah. That gets us to 3,553 years after the Creation. There may be some discrepancies in exact dates due to miscalculation of the co-regency rulers, but given all that, it’s possible to say what the date would be in our terms—and when one adjusts for the differences in calendrical systems, the vast majority consensus is 586 BC. This would mean that 1 AD would be around 4,150 after the Creation, plus or minus less than 50 years, and today we would be around 6,150 after the Creation, plus or minus less than 50 years.

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.

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.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The problem with that viewpoint is that it plays fairly fast and loose with the facts.

Which facts are we talking about? The Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Samaritan Penteteuch, or some other source?

You assume gaps from Noah forward, but there are none.

No, I don't. It seems you don't understand my argument and are stuck arguing against points made by other people.

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 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.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Does your statement about ancient manuscripts being irrelevant to the bottom line apply throughout the Bible or only to this genealogical issue?

 

[Bluelion]

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'.

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. <staff edit> either it is the Word of God with out error or it is not, that simple.

 

[OzSpen]

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?

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.

 

[Bluelion]

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.

Oh now it is an attack on the Bible, I am sorry but that is against the rules here.

So you show your heart you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, you think it has errors.


Lismore remember what I said early you can not believe the Bible has errors and believe Jesus i Christ too.

You guys are attacking me and the Bible before i do the research, You are showing your self to be an enemy not a brother.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Which facts are we talking about? The Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Samaritan Penteteuch, or some other source?

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.

So the assumption there are errors of agreement among the various families of manuscripts may be correct, but it truly is not germane, nor a valid argument.

No, I don't. It seems you don't understand my argument and are stuck arguing against points made by other people.

Simply because I anticipate what your next argument will be if this one proves incorrect.

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?

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 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 have seen it before. That is why I know the answer to it.

 

[Bluelion]

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.

The Jewish calendar also claims a little over 6,000 years. In fact no calendar from any civilization claims a billions year old earth

 

[OzSpen]

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

 

[Bluelion]

I'm going to bow out now, because now this has become an attack on the Bible that it some how contains errors. That Goes against the statement of faith. We here believe the Bible is the inspired work of God and is with out error in any part, because God is without error.

The wisdom of men is the song of those spirituality drunk.

 

[Bluelion]

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

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.

 

[Messy]

I've been a YEC for over 20 years, but I don't believe it anymore and it's keeping people from coming to God, so it is a salvation issue. Some might accept it and get saved, but I think a whole lot of evolutionists don't buy it and then think God isn't real either. The mountains have layers with fossils in it and there were mountains before the flood started, that's in the Bible. So those fossils didn't come from the flood. I believe in a literal six days with a gap.
The Bible, Genesis Á Geology
Gap Theorists Defended

 

[LilLamb219]

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

 

[OzSpen]

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.

This is what you said about me and my belief in the Bible and my being a Christian at #26:

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.

 

[Yekcidmij]

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.

First, is your contention is that the LXX scribes just didn't know Hebrew? I don't think that's going to be supportable. There are instances where the LXX seems to be superior to the MT (evidence comes by way of comparison with the DSS, which did contain Hebrew), which would indicate that the LXX scribes weren't so dull as to not know how to translate Hebrew. And this still does not explain how the SP, which is also Hebrew, also has different numbers in the genealogies.

Second, the LXX doesn't just make a 100 year error. It has many other differences in the genealogies.

Third, if the LXX is to be dismissed, why does Luke quote from directly from the LXX? Not only does he quote from the LXX, but he quotes the very genealogies we're talking about.

Luke 3:36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

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 does have Genesis 5 and 11 - and the numbers are different.

It is accurate, but does not contain the entire Israelite genealogy as displayed in the Masoretic Text.

And the genealogy it does contain is different.

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.

So is this your reason to prefer the MT over the LXX and SP? And should we prefer the MT everywhere and always? Why do you think the scribes of the LXX, SP, and DSS where all less careful?

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.

I didn't have anyone work for me. Actually, my investigation into this as been a little extensive (and you do mean to insult me, so don't pretend you don't). In any case, perhaps you should put your intellectual insults aside, deal with the arguments and worry less about how I came across the different genealogies in the manuscripts?

 

[Yekcidmij]

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

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.

 

[Bluelion]

This is what you said about me and my belief in the Bible and my being a Christian at #26:

and that differs from what i said I said how?

 

[Bluelion]

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.

so your not saying the Bible has errors just the scripture which is was translated from, right so its ok because you did not say Bible.