>> >
>[..]
>> 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.
>
>This is very interesting, I hadn't heard of that before; but it would
>introduce problems of its own. Consider Genesis 5:15-16 for an extreme
>example:
>When Mahalalel (I think that's the right number of "l's"!) had lived 65
>years he became the father of Jared. And after he became the father of
>Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years. Altogether Mahalalel lived 895 years
>and then he died.
>
It is interesting that the Septuagint, which is a parallel, descendant
(albeit translated) copy from a Hebrew manuscript earlier than the
Masoretic text, gives 165 for the age of Mahalalel's first born. In fact
the Septuagint adds 100 years to the ages of several patriarchs. It is
possible that the Masoretic text somehow dropped the hundreds place holder
in Hebrew numerals. (see Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution, p. 130)
>If the years are actually lunar months, this would mean that M.. became
>a father at the age of about 5, which takes a bit of believing, even
>allowing for the possibility that they reached maturity younger in those
>days :-)
Given the Septuagint time, it would mean 14. And I will guarantee you that
I could have fathered a child at age 14 (thankfully no girl gave me the
opportunity) :-)
>
>> >> lives of several hundred years and that their first born were born on
>> >> average when the old geezers were 120 years of age?
>
>I'm not actually asserting anything. But there seems to be two options
>here. We can take the ages at face value, or we can assume that they
>are not literal - in which case, what are we to make of them? And if
>they are not literal, is it still necessary to insist that other aspects
>of the stories must be? How do we choose between what is literal and what
>isn't?
As I understand it the hundred in the hebrew numerals is a dot. Dots can
be overlooked and lost. The option that you don't list above, is that the
manuscript we use has lost it. There are documented copyist errors in all
manuscripts and so the best one can do is to assert that the documents were
correct in their initial form.
>> >> It has always seemed strange to me that everyone wants early Genesis
>> >> allegorical except the parts that they don't want allegorical.
>
>I would much rather that none of it is allegorical - though I believe
>that symbolism has been used to describe some of the events; but they
>must still have been real events.
Agreed.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm