|  eat | May 9, 2007 11:52am | 230: The numbers are put forward by the author of Genesis. An elementary school student could add them together and see that there were exactly 1942 years between Adam and Abraham. It is not high level math.
To illustrate this point, the relevant verses are posted below:
Genesis 5:1-32 -
"This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a] "
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father [b] of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah [c] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth."
Genesis 11:10-32 -
"10 This is the account of Shem.
Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father [d] of Arphaxad. 11 And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters. [e]
14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.
18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.
20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.
22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.
24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. 25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.
26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.
27 This is the account of Terah.
Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 28 While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29 Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. 30 Now Sarai was barren; she had no children.
31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there.
32 Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Haran." |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 11:58am | No. The author of Genesis does state the account of the world. I have yet to read that the author states without any other belief, that it was 24 hours. Man has done that. Interpretation my friend....
Yet Augustine's interpretations were not open-ended. He suggested the following procedure that applies to Genesis as well as any other biblical text. He said that we first should seek to expound the author's meaning according to the historical or literal sense. The literal sense for Augustine is the sense the words bear in their original historical-linguistic context. If we are unable to agree on the author's meaning, we at least should interpret Scripture according to the wider context of the Bible as a whole. We should make sure that our interpretations of a particular text are consistent with what the Bible says elsewhere. If this proves difficult, we must interpret the Bible within the boundaries of the Catholic faith. Augustine directs this advice against those who rashly assert the meaning of the Bible on uncertain and doubtful matters. It is better to be humble than to proclaim boldly opinions on Scripture that might be wrong. The key to Augustine's approach to the Bible lies in his willingness to read the Bible with the Church. |
|
|
| | eat | May 9, 2007 12:00pm | | I am arguing about humanity, not Earth. Again, I am no longer arguing the definition of day. I am arguing how old Genesis says humanity is, not Earth. Please address the argument about humanity, not Earth. Posting quotations that are unrelated to this argument is wasteful. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 12:01pm | | Humanity... Humans with souls or humaniods without? There also the author doesn't tell us if there where humaniods prior to "Man". |
|
|
| | eat | May 9, 2007 12:04pm | | Man is known in science as homo sapiens. Homo sapiens emerged about 70,000 years ago. Genesis says that humans (which it presumes to have souls) emerged about 5250 years ago. For the purposes of this argument, homo sapiens have souls. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 12:13pm | | No, Man is a homo sapien that has a God given soul. Humaniods, or those mammals that look and fall in the same catagory as man (including monkeys, etc) are the ones that emerged 70K+ years ago. So does Genesis say that a form of mammal that walks or.... No, Genesis tells us of Man, the one created in the image of God, the one with souls. Angels have no body and animals, including most mammals (not man) have no souls. God created that combo as stated in Genesis. And no, not all homo sapiens have souls. |
|
|
| | eat | May 9, 2007 12:16pm | Modern man is of the species homo sapien. This is a basic fact of biology. There is no more specific classification of an organism than species. The homo sapiens from 70,000 years ago, Adam, you and I would all consider ourselves modern men. But Genesis tells us that Adam, the first human, emerged a little over 5000 years ago, not 70,000 years ago as is shown by science.
With this definition established and the simple arithmetic laid out, Genesis itself, not merely one of its many interpretations, contradicts science and thus is wrong. |
|
| 
|  JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 12:45pm | ok, I think we all agree that genesis isn't scientifically accurate--we also agree that scripture must be interpreted in light of science. my point has been that if we're reinterpreting the bible in light of scientific authority (which takes precedence apparently) then how can the bible be authoritative? especially when any number of interpretations are possible. I could think up some pretty cooky interpretations that would all fit together. this means that bible isn't really authoritative if we're reading into it all the things that we want. if it can be used to justify almost anything you want, there is nothing special about it. why not scrap the whole thing, since we're just reinterpreting the whole thing in light of science anyway? why not just use science? (and by the general term "science" I mean basing your beliefs on empirical evidence).
ultimately, it's just a desire to believe. essentially, "well, I want to believe in an after-life and I like what this book says, so I'm gonna use it to guide my life." that kind of thinking isn't useful. why not base your beliefs on something authoritative?
I could just as easily make the Iliad the guide for my life because it's just as authoritative as the bible, and nearly as old.
I guess what I'm getting at--the bible is without a foundational basis for belief. if genesis is inaccurate, or if any piece is inaccurate, if we can interpret whatever "fits together" and come out with multiple solutions, there is no foundation to say this is the only way to live (because if there are multiple working interpretations, then there are multiple ways to salvation). realizing this, and realizing that this fact is very hard to coincide with other lessons in the bible, the whole thing just doesn't make sense. let me expound on that a bit (I can't seem to get my thoughts out clearly today... hence the rambling): multiple coherent solutions arise from internal interpretation; but this realization doesn't coincide with those same teachings of the bible--it's contradictory. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 12:59pm | Eat, are you saying that all homo-sapien fall under the catagory of modern man "Human beings" or that all human-beings (Modern man) fall under the catagory homo-sapiens?
And if all are grouped as one, like you say they are, there are no differences in what was found that existed back then to now. I haven't read anywhere about science finding the MISSING link. So as you can see, I am saying that the Bible tells us of Modern man, man with a soul, it doesn't say anything about mammals that resemble man, lucy, that had no souls. Before we can use your timeline to establish the math, you need to define what is being talked about in the evolution thread. When was "Man", as defined by God, created. Not when were animals that look like man.
#238. what is the purpose of the Bible. To teach us all about biology, thermal dynamics, astronomy, geology o any of the sciences? Or is to tell us about who we are, why we were created, and the instrument of salvation? It is authoritive in the facts presented to us about God and salvation. It never said it gave us the full knowledge of geology and the sorts.
The Bible does have a foundation. That was and is Jesus. |
|
|
| | JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 1:06pm | 238. human beings and modern man are homo sapiens. homo sapiens are modern man, which are human beings. and we've found many missing links--at least we can see a clear directional developmental change. so the timeline would be god created modern man ~70,000 years ago.
and my point about the bible and its foundation: if making the bible fit with science results in multiple working interpretations, and that fact is contradictory with the text--with christ's teachings--how is that a foundation? |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion