tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114804968301065994..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Genesis, Immortality and Failed PropheciesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64381140098087966432010-07-22T13:15:14.641-04:002010-07-22T13:15:14.641-04:00The 120 years mentioned in Gen 6 is not referring ...The 120 years mentioned in Gen 6 is not referring to any limit on how long individual people would live. It is telling us how long God will continue striving with man: "My spirit shall not always strive with man".<br /><br />The 120 years was the period of time before the flood would occur.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12109426249462175333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148139815713586082006-05-20T11:43:00.000-04:002006-05-20T11:43:00.000-04:00Daniel Morgan: Some people have suggested that the...Daniel Morgan: Some people have suggested that the chronologies in Gen 5 were based on the lunar, rather than solar, calendar. If true, the magnitude of the age can be divided by 12, and the difficulty in this miraculous age of the patriarchs disappears.[..]<BR/>Problem is, Kenan (Gen 5:12) had a kid at 70. Divide that by 12, and we have the world's youngest father at 5 years of age.<BR/>---<BR/><I>Wikipedia: Other Islamic traditions hold that Adam was moved to Sri Lanka, as the next best thing to Eden, and, <B>viewing Adam as having been a giant</B>, human size having shrunk drastically before the great flood, Adam's Peak is said to contain his giant footprint.</I><BR/><BR/>I gather it's difficult to pinpoint exactly which early cultures and mythologies the Bible came from, maybe Genesis was a combination of stories from oral tradition? (I mean, earlier written records do not exist.)<BR/>Many of the ancient cultures believed in Giants, something slightly less than a god -i.e., Atlas who held the sky on his shoulders in the Greek myths. <BR/>Maybe this explains the long lifespan... I mean, the Genesis account even mentions human women having sexual relationship with giants, nephalim and the term sons of god are implied... immortality and the gods tend to go together, the Titans were giants and locked in the lowest hell... how long should they live, hundreds or thousands of years?Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148118290992366362006-05-20T05:44:00.000-04:002006-05-20T05:44:00.000-04:00Some people have suggested that the chronologies i...Some people have suggested that the chronologies in Gen 5 were based on the lunar, rather than solar, calendar. If true, the magnitude of the age can be divided by 12, and the difficulty in this miraculous age of the patriarchs disappears.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this also makes sense from the perspective that they supposedly didn't start having kids until <B>very late in life</B>, some of them over 100 years old when they had their first kid. In viewing that fact, you think, "a correction factor must be applied to all of these ages, so the calendar is probably the fix."<BR/><BR/>Problem is, Kenan (Gen 5:12) had a kid at 70. Divide that by 12, and we have the world's youngest father at 5 years of age.<BR/><BR/>So, there doesn't seem a satisfactory solution either way -- it is quite unbelievable that people lived for a millenium, and equally unbelievable that they waited over 100 years to have kids in a day when contraception was unheard of.<BR/><BR/>It is also not a "solution" to divide everything by some number, because it makes some of the ages for conception far too young.<BR/><BR/>Silly old myths, folk-tales, lore...nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148068228860699492006-05-19T15:50:00.000-04:002006-05-19T15:50:00.000-04:00Dagoods, thanks for that link,parts of the story.....Dagoods, thanks for that link,<BR/><I>parts of the story... are difficult or impossible to separate.</I><BR/><BR/>Is there more?<BR/><BR/>For instance, with the rise of Babylon, Sargon who conquered and united the city states of Mesopotamia has one account that sounds much like Moses, that he was "found in a basket floating on a river". Similar to Moses who becomes a Prince in Egypt, Sargon became cup-bearer to the king of the city of Kish... overthrew him and took his place. <BR/><BR/>A couple details in Sargon myths sound much like the Biblical Moses.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148067321251222542006-05-19T15:35:00.000-04:002006-05-19T15:35:00.000-04:00Sharon Mooney,If you want to see the two flood sto...Sharon Mooney,<BR/><BR/>If you want to see the two flood stories separated out, <A HREF="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jp-flood.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> is the traditional split. They were later intermingled, as you suspect.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148064774486460302006-05-19T14:52:00.000-04:002006-05-19T14:52:00.000-04:00Confusion Abounds in GenesisQuestion for some of y...Confusion Abounds in Genesis<BR/><BR/><B>Question for some of you scholarly types on D.C.</B> :<BR/><BR/>Gn:6:19: And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. (KJV)<BR/>*Genesis 6 states nothing of taking by sevens, "clean animals" on the ark. Simply "two of every kind". To my knowledge, there has been no "list of clean animals" in Genesis up to this point --Where before Genesis 7, are clean and unclean meats even specified? Perhaps that explains Genesis 6. Perhaps Genesis 7 was <I>spliced in at a later time</I>, added in retrospect of Leviticus and Deuteronomy's list of clean and unclean meats ?<BR/><BR/>Gn:7:2: Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. (KJV)<BR/>This contradicts with chapter six.<BR/><BR/>Followed by further confusion when Jehovah commands in Chapter 7, to take them by sevens, and preserve them ... for what, except --<BR/>Genesis 9: 3 -- "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."<BR/><BR/>The first time a specific law is given defining clean and unclean meats, that law is "anything goes" -- as in, "all moving things" are sanctified as good to eat. So why the pairs of seven of the "clean animals". . . -- <I>what the hey, why mince meat... we'll just make them ALL clean to eat</I>.<BR/><BR/>Or, am I misunderstanding something?Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148060448196175442006-05-19T13:40:00.000-04:002006-05-19T13:40:00.000-04:00"The West Bank fossils may be snakes whose limbs r...<I>"The West Bank fossils may be snakes whose limbs re-evolved, making them "real snakes, just extinct real snakes" with legs, Greene said. Greene postulates that if animals like the West Bank fossils could re-evolve limbs, then other animals that have certain genes they never lost but whose "triggers" are dormant could re-evolve those traits. Maybe humans will end up with tails again."</I><BR/><BR/>Like Jehovah, I am free to err.<BR/>I am guilty of misinterpreting Greene's statement. After reading with closer examination, -- Greene is saying these fossils were descendants of real modern snakes as we know snakes (the legless variety)... and they were a species which emerged in the fossil record, developing legs... and then, went extinct.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.com