My evil twin does half of the work, I do the other. :-)
They tend to trust what the 'experts' tell them, as in
>many other fields. The question is, why haven't the experts passed this
>on? I guess the matter of genealogies doesn't arise too often in Sunday
>sermons, but there must be people who ask questions... Or maybe people
>don't read their bibles enough (or not critically enough) to realise
>that there are such questions that should be raised. I don't know.
What I find strange in the above is the assertion that they believe the
experts. Christians in the pews do have a tendency to believe theological
experts but almost never (at least in the conservative branch of
Christianity) do they believe the experts in geology, biology, astronomy
etc. On matters of science, they believe the theologians!
>
>> And the Genealogies are most assuredly very incomplete. Assuming what you
>> say is true that the Flood was in 3000 B.C. David lived about 1000 B.C.
>> In Luke 3 there are 42 names between Jesus and David. This is an average
>> of 23 years per generation. If Abraham lived at 1800 B.C. there are only
>> 13 names between David and Abe giving an average 61 year generation time.
>> Did the average man in 1600 B.C. have his first child at age 61?
>
>Well, if the ages given in the Bible are to be believed, I must assume
>yes, at least as far as the patriarchs are concerned. What do you make
>of these ages?
First off, the above was not refering to the Genesis patriarchs alone.
There is still a problem between Abe and David, given the life expectency
during that period of time. Early agriculture actually shortened human
life, it was no benefit to health. It made for a people capable of
producing lots of children in a very short life.
But since you ask about the ancient patriarch, I sometimes wonder if there
isn't a change to a lunar year somewhere back there. I haven't been able
to find the reference but I recall reading about the Egyptians using the
month and calling it a year. If this were the case, it would give a
different perspective on some of the earliest ages. However, in principle,
I have no problem with believing that they are actual years, if one pushes
them far enough back in time because there is no skeletal evidence I am
aware of for 400 year old people, much less 800.
>
>>
>> [according to skeletal evidence most people died before they were 40 in
>> that time period--grm]
>
>Is it possible that if these people really were living longer lives that
>they were aging more slowly, and this could be reflected in the skeletal
>remains? Just a thought - not intrinsically or logistically impossible,
>I would guess, but obviously with no real evidence to back it up.
>
>>
>> There are only 10 names between Abraham and Noah. Since you believe that
>> this represents 1200 years, that is an average generation time of 120
>> years. Are you willing to say here and now that post flood Sumerians lived
>> lives of several hundred years and that their first born were born on
>> average when the old geezers were 120 years of age?
>>
>
>Again, the pre-Abrahamic figures are reported to have lived much longer
lives.
>Maybe there is a good explanation that it is some kind of literary
>technique or something, but the natural reading of the text is to take it
>at face value. Or do we say that the names of the people are real, but the
>ages are not?
>
>> Assuming that people in the 1200 years between David and Abraham had the
>> same generation time as between David and Jesus, then the Luke Genealogy
>> represents 1/3 of the people who should be there. Between Abraham and
>> Noah, 1/5 of the necessary people. When you consider that people married
>> and had children younger these figures for the missing people should be
>> considered conservative.
>>
>> That people are missing from the genealogies is no big surprise. The
>> question is how many people? Can you cite a verse that says no
>> geneological gap shall hold more than 5 people? The issue is not when the
>> people lived or how old they are. The issue is whether or not they were
>> real people.
>> <<<
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Obviously our faith (and my faith) is in Jesus Christ. But I often ask
>> >> myself and others "Would you believe Jesus is the Messiah if there
were no
>> >> evidence of Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, Samaritans, Israel, Judah
>> >> etc. Would you believe that Jesus is the son of God if there were no
>> >> evidence of a Roman empire, no evidence that man had ships 2000 years
ago
>> >> upon which Paul could travel?"
>> >>
>> >> I would contend that you would dismiss the Scripture as a collection of
>> >> fairy tales in the same manner we reject the Book of Mormon. It doesn't
>> >> match the unique history of the world.
>> >
>> >You would be right - but of course we *do* have such supporting evidence!
>>
>> but as you mentioned earlier, we have evidence gets scarcer the further we
>> go back. And both liberal and conservative have offered flood scenarios
>> (global vs mesopotamian floods) which can't be true in our universe. Yet
>> these scenarios are offered as if they solve the problem.
>>
>> >
>> > Now if you would reject
>> >> Christianity in the above situation, at what point does Christianity
become
>> >> acceptable? How much false history can be taught and still have a
viable
>> >> religion?
>> >
>> >It wouldn't necessarily have to be taught as false history if it is
>> >in fact allegorical. Personally I hope it is not, but if it could be
>> >proved that it must be, then I would have to revise my thinking
>> >somewhat - but I have to do that quite often anyway :-) but I don't
>> >think in this case it would necessarily be fatal to Christianity.
>>
>> It has always seemed strange to me that everyone wants early Genesis
>> allegorical except the parts that they don't want allegorical.
>
> Genesis 1
>> is often hit hard as being poetry or what ever but that it doesn't
>> represent the real state of affairs. Yet then they turn around and say that
>> Genesis 1:1 is actual history!!!
>
>Genesis 1 cannot IMO be history as we define it today. The idea of the
>firmament at least must be figurative. But this doesn't mean that it
>doesn't describe real events. It gives not so much a description of
>how the Universe came to be how it is, as a revelation of the one who
>created it, and that it was created for him and for his pleasure.
>
>/Gary
>
>
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm