From Adam To Noah

[4enlightment]

I don't think Joshua was mistaken, I just don't believe that if the Bible references another book or something that the other is inspired like the Word of God. The Bible references Greek gods sometimes and many OT gods and goddesses but that doesn't mean they're holy.

Numbers 24:1 Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel, he did not resort to divination as at other times, but turned his face toward the wilderness. 2 When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came on him 3 and he spoke his message:

“The prophecy of Balaam son of Beor,
the prophecy of one whose eye sees clearly,
4 the prophecy of one who hears the words of God,
who sees a vision from the Almighty,
who falls prostrate, and whose eyes are opened:
5 “How beautiful are your tents, Jacob,
your dwelling places, Israel!.....


Genesis 15:13 Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.

All the words that had came from God has been written down in a book for the next generations to know; God wanted to let the people to know that He is God, that what ever He says is going to happen, it is going to happen; and if the people doesn't know what he had said, then how will the people know that He speaking the truth? It would be stupid to write a book about a group of people being in captivity for four hundred years after they had came from it; that will not prove nothing. It is like if I prophesied about a man that goes by the name Tintin will come to this site, after he has been on it for a while; that isn't a prophecy, because I said it after the fact, not before. The Hebrews were waiting on the Lord way before Moses had came to be; and so they must kept records and had past it on down to the next. So if the next pharaoh, he did not knew what Joseph had done, but why he didn't know? Everything has to be written down or else it will be forgotten or blotted from our minds.

Hebrews 8:12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Matthew 26:75 Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Luke 23:42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Luke 10:20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Proverbs 3:1 My son, do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart,

 

[jaybird88]

You claim to know something about history, and then make this gross error about the Egyptian dynasties.

You are 6000 years off concerning the start of the Egyptian dynasties!! The Old Kingdom was united around 3000 BC, which became the first dynasty. The Middle Kingdom started around 2055 with the 11th dynasty, and the New Kingdom started with the 18th dynasty, around 1650 BC.

If you know so little about Egyptian history, what are you missing about archaeology and geology that you base these uninformed decisions on?

I am not an expert nor a final authority on anything. Just a guy that likes to study things. I try and word my statements to not sound bold and arrogant. The statements I made here were just based on other academics work that know more than I do.
King list of Seti the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] is one of the list you are referring to and it goes back around 3000bc in the same temple on the same wall is another list , confirmed by other ancient king lists called the Shemsu Hor. It goes back thousands of more years. Some scholars view this list as whimsy folklore but this was thought of as very real to the Egyptians and I think they would know.

Actually, geology and geography are very solidly behind a young earth. Have you ever heard of Surtsey? It is a volcanic island off the coast of Iceland. The eruption lasted until June 1967, and since then the Island has been eroded by wave action, causing the size to diminish from 2.7 km2 to 1.4 km2 in 2002.
As far as archaeology, the evidence backs a short earth. Written language sprang up at nearly the same time in numerous early civilizations around 3400 to 3200 BC in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Other cultural things sprang into being at nearly the same time, suggesting a common origin.

There is also the water erosion work done on the Sphinx done by Robert Schoch and John Anthony West, supported by majority of geologist.


There is also procession alignment dating which as been around for a while but only recently been accepted by many academics. In my opinion its much more accurate than carbon dating as its based on solar calculations which are like clockwork.


Archaeology is not an exact science, it bases its theories on current finds.
Look up ancient cities, turky, peru, india. I dont have the energy right now.


Also I dont appreciate the sarcasm and you referring to me as if I am an idiot. I was raised by good people that taught me to speak to people with propriety and respect.

 

[Kerry]

My goodness thats all I can say

 

[JackH]

My goodness thats all I can say

Speaking of Egypt, thank you for reminding me of Nazlet Khater Man.

That dude's skeleton is around 35,000 years old, according to reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.

 

[Jeff_56]

fake, like all the others that are devised to disprove yahweh's sovereignty.

 

[JackH]

fake, like all the others that are devised to disprove yahweh's sovereignty.

This teenage girl's skeleton is of particular relevance to this thread:

Oldest Most Complete, Genetically Intact Human Skeleton in the New World Indicates Shared Ancestry – National Geographic Society Press Room

Not only can scientists determine how old the bones are, they can determine how old the person was when he/she died.

There is absolutely no evidence that humans lived to be 900 years old.

None.

 

[Elin]

This teenage girl's skeleton is of particular relevance to this thread:

Oldest Most Complete, Genetically Intact Human Skeleton in the New World Indicates Shared Ancestry – National Geographic Society Press Room

Not only can scientists determine how old the bones are, they can determine how old the person was when he/she died.

There is absolutely no evidence that humans lived to be 900 years old.

None.

The Biblical record is evidence.

 

[Elin]

Speaking of Egypt, thank you for reminding me of Nazlet Khater Man.

That dude's skeleton is around 35,000 years old, according to reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Have you been keeping up with the discussion regarding dating?

 

[JackH]

Have you been keeping up with the discussion regarding dating?

Oh sure. Especially what Dr. Gary Hurd had to say about dating in these forums.

You don't agree with him, on the subject of dating?

 

[JimmieD]

The Biblical record is evidence.

In the Sumerian Kings list, the reigns of the earliest kings were tens of thousands of years long. Is this evidence that the first kings of Sumer actually reigned that long? No - it's rather obvious that the list is attempting to establish dynastic pedigree for Sumer and the kings that were living during the actual time of the writing, which was much later.

The purpose of Genesis is similarly establishing the pedigree for someone - namely, Israel. For it's author, what's most important about the genealogies is that he can trace it back to the very first man; the length of lives is almost immaterial. In fact, there is disagreement between Old Testament manuscripts as to how old the earliest people in Genesis really were. It's not the lengths of lives that matter, it's the purpose that those lives had which were relevant to the author and his audience.

Sumerian King List - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tintin]

Speaking of Egypt, thank you for reminding me of Nazlet Khater Man.

That dude's skeleton is around 35,000 years old, according to reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Speaking of Egypt, thank you for reminding me of Nazlet Khater Man.

That dude's skeleton is around 35,000 years old, according to (highly-biased, evolutionary/old-age) peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Fixed.

 

[Tintin]

In the Sumerian Kings list, the reigns of the earliest kings were tens of thousands of years long. Is this evidence that the first kings of Sumer actually reigned that long? No - it's rather obvious that the list is attempting to establish dynastic pedigree for Sumer and the kings that were living during the actual time of the writing, which was much later.

The purpose of Genesis is similarly establishing the pedigree for someone - namely, Israel. For it's author, what's most important about the genealogies is that he can trace it back to the very first man; the length of lives is almost immaterial. In fact, there is disagreement between Old Testament manuscripts as to how old the earliest people in Genesis really were. It's not the lengths of lives that matter, it's the purpose that those lives had which were relevant to the author and his audience.

Sumerian King List - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're right about the Sumerian Kings list, that they speak to the pedigree of the kings and the need for Sumerian and Babylonians to exaggerate everything, but these lists (as extreme as they are) actually speak to the authenticity of the early chapters of Genesis. I don't think it's wise to say that the Genesis account serves the same purpose, that it's just used to establish the pedigree of Israel. First of all, that's saying God didn't really mean what He says in His Word (sound familiar? eg. the serpent (Satan) in the Garden of Eden) but also that we can't trust God's Word. It's God-breathed, inerrant and so, even if some things seem unbelievable (long ages etc.) we can't just discredit them. If we claim to be Christ's followers and to believe the Bible, then we must hold it in the highest authority, well above any other historical text, and believe all of it. God's Word is truth! And the book of Genesis is the record of early history (from Creation onwards).

 

[Jeff_56]

The Biblical record is evidence.

yahweh, yahshua(yahweh's salvation messiah savior king 'name above every name'),
psalms 1 to 150, moses, david(king), samuel, elisha, elijah, john, peter, james, paul, timothy, philip, 144,000 plus,
ekklesia, faithful ones, truthful ones, everywhere those obedient to yahweh, little children accepted by yahweh in yahshua, everyone truly born again

agree.

yahweh is enough. all the others testify of him in truth as he works in them and permits them to.

since yahweh is for us (ekklesia, immersed in him, born again, set apart ones, called and chosen by yahweh)
who can be against us ? what can the whole world and legions of demons to to us unless he permits ?

 

[JackH]

I am sure the earth is older than 6500 years, but i am trying to get answers on age of mankind.

Information on the oldest human skull found in the Middle East has just been released:

Oldest human skull in Middle East found in northern Israel - Middle East - Jerusalem Post

There is an article about this 55,000-year-old skull in the latest issue of Nature Magazine.

Of course, there are those who will say it is fake because it does not fit within the framework of their 6,000-year-old worldview. And these same individuals call themselves big critical thinkers.

 

[DiscipleDave]

Speaking of Egypt, thank you for reminding me of Nazlet Khater Man.

That dude's skeleton is around 35,000 years old, according to reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.

and the Wine that Jesus made, how old would these reputable peer-reviewed scientifics say that was if they tested it seconds after it was made by Jesus?
Or the fish that Jesus miraculously made appear how old would those reputable peer-reviewed scientifics say those were?
Of coarse whatever they said would have been WRONG. Because God can do whatever He wants, He is not bound by the physics of this planet, that's why He could walk on water.
Tell me, what would these reputable peer-reviewed scientists claim about walking on water? AGAIN, they would be WRONG.
What reputable peer-reviewed scientists say and teach is truth, is nothing but FICTION in the hands of God. You would do well to remember that.

^i^

 

[DiscipleDave]

This teenage girl's skeleton is of particular relevance to this thread:

Oldest Most Complete, Genetically Intact Human Skeleton in the New World Indicates Shared Ancestry – National Geographic Society Press Room

Not only can scientists determine how old the bones are, they can determine how old the person was when he/she died.

There is absolutely no evidence that humans lived to be 900 years old.

None.

Question. All the dating methods we use today, is based on several things, but one of those things is the main thing all those dating methods are used, and that one thing is. It is assuming that the atmosphere we have now, is the same that it always has been. That is a FACT and is True.
Carbon 14 dating is calculated by the number of carbons found in a particular bone. That calculation is done based on how many carbons enter into a bone in the atmosphere we have now.
For example, lets say (hypothetically) that one carbon enters a bone every single year, one a year. Say we find a bone, and carbon date it, and it has 14 carbons, then based on the calculation of one carbon a year, then we can deduce that the bone is 14 years old. Are you following me so far? So we find a bone that has 100,000 carbons in it, so we deduce that particular bone to be a 100,000 years old, based on the calculations that we find today in the atmosphere we have today, one per year. That is how carbon dating works.
Now here is a FACT, carbon dating is extremely accurate up to 4000 years ago.
You take a 3,000 year old bone, and take from that bone any part of it, it will register 3,000 years old.
Now here is a FACT, if you take a bone that is over 4,000 year old, and you carbon date any part of that bone, it will read one time to be 5,000 years old, and another part of it would read a million years old, and another part of that same bone would read 400,000 years old. NEVER getting the same exact reading, like would do anything that is under 4,000 years old. So they determine any bone older than 4000 years the age of that bone based on averages of the abound of time they carbon dated the bone.
Now here is my question knowing that all the above is True, and anyone who does any kind of research on carbon dating will agree. What if the atmosphere was NOT the same as it is today, would carbon dating be accurate then? Of course NOT. carbon dating is based on the amount of carbons that enter a bone in the atmosphere we have now.
Here is the Truth.
Four Thousand years ago the atmosphere was entirely different than it is now. Today lets say one carbon enters a bone per year. prior to the flood in that different atmosphere, 100 carbons enters a bone per year (these are hypothetical numbers) The Bible testifies, that prior to the flood long ages. we have fossils prior to the flood that reveal two foot grasshoppers, and 50 foot cattails.
my point is this, carbon 14 dating is ONLY accurate in the atmosphere we have today was ALWAYS the atmosphere we have had. Carbon 14 dating is extremely accurate on anything that is 4,000 years old or younger. But ANYTHING that is over 4000 years old, carbon 14 dating is NOT accurate, and the readings of the same bone is short and long and everything in between, NOT ACCURATE. Why is that? i have already told you. The atmosphere was different over 4,000 years ago.
What don't think God would change the atmosphere? Yet we have over and over again that God is going to destroy this atmosphere and we will have a NEW atmosphere all throughout His Word. And this NEW atmosphere will restore the long age again. If you want to know all the Scriptural references concerning that click HERE.

^i^

 

[DiscipleDave]

Information on the oldest human skull found in the Middle East has just been released:

Oldest human skull in Middle East found in northern Israel - Middle East - Jerusalem Post

There is an article about this 55,000-year-old skull in the latest issue of Nature Magazine.

And that 55,000 year old skill was determined to be that age by what method? and is that method accurate?
Now they could absolutely say this statement and it would be True.
"We have found a 55,000 year old skull, which the age was determined by carbon dating, which is calculated by the number of carbons that we find enters a bone in the atmosphere we have today" Now that would be a Scientific truth.
Again, i will say it. Carbon dating is calculated based on how many carbons enter a bone in the atmosphere we have now.
But if the atmosphere was different 4000 years ago, then carbon dating could not possibly be accurate longer than that date, and lo and behold we see the evidence of that.
i assure you that 55,000 year old skull is an average of how many times they carbon dated the skull.
One reading said 75,000
One reading said 23,356
One reading said 68,587
One reading said 79,443
One reading said 32,223
One reading said 60,123
One reading said 50,321
One reading said 19,473
One reading said 100,121
AVERAGE is 54,865 years old. Therefore publish results of the skull would read a 55,000 year old skull was found. And said as if it was a FACT and indisputable, And people believe it without questioning it at all, Because scientists said it, so it must be True. Scientist also said the Earth was flat too, we NOW know the Truth. scientist also said and taught that the Earth was the center of the galaxy and that the Sun rotates around the Earth, Again Wrong. Scientist also said that stalagmites in caves took thousands of years to make, again Wrong. They also said and published in Scientific journals that a petrified rock takes thousands of years in order for them to be created, Again they were WRONG.
Here is something that you will never read in a Scientific journal "Oops we were wrong" lol, scientists, they know nothing at all, anyone who puts their faith into them and not in God, is believing man and not God. God makes the truths of men to be fiction.

^i^

 

[JimmieD]

You're right about the Sumerian Kings list, that they speak to the pedigree of the kings and the need for Sumerian and Babylonians to exaggerate everything, but these lists (as extreme as they are) actually speak to the authenticity of the early chapters of Genesis.

Authentic as in authentically ancient like the Sumerian kings list?

I don't think it's wise to say that the Genesis account serves the same purpose, that it's just used to establish the pedigree of Israel.

I think it's clear that's what it's purpose is. The logic of the narrative of all of Genesis is to establish Israel as God's chosen people and set things up for the Exodus. You start with a series of people chosen by God yet who repeatedly fail until you get to Abraham and his descendants who are to fulfill the purposes of God for the world. The inclusion of the genealogies fits right in with this theme of establishing Israel as God's chosen people.

First of all, that's saying God didn't really mean what He says in His Word (sound familiar? eg. the serpent (Satan) in the Garden of Eden) but also that we can't trust God's Word.

It's hard to have a serious discussion when your first point is to analogize me as Satan's mouthpiece. If needed, I will give a lengthy, and hopefully hilarious, explanation as to why your analogy is utterly ridiculous and self-serving.

It's God-breathed, inerrant and so,

Yep, agreed. Now back to discussing what it means.

even if some things seem unbelievable (long ages etc.) we can't just discredit them.

I don't think I was discrediting them. I think I was looking at what purpose they serve and what the meaning is. I think what's key for understanding any text is the author's intent.

If we claim to be Christ's followers and to believe the Bible, then we must hold it in the highest authority, well above any other historical text, and believe all of it. God's Word is truth!

This looks like a long way of you saying, "you're out of bounds, now get back in line." I fail to see the usefulness of it. The assumption is that either (a) I don't follow Christ, (b) I don't believe the bible, or (c) I don't hold it in the highest authority. What we're really discussing here is what the text means, and not my level of Christian commitment, the degree to which I believe the bible, or the level of authority of the bible. Those things are irrelevant to figuring out the meaning of the text. Regardless, when trying to figure out what it means, we can't just take your particular views for granted and assume that everyone who disagrees is therefore not/less Christian, doesn't believe the bible, or doesn't hold it in the highest authority.

 

[JackH]

Do you know what makes a great wine? AGE.
One of Jesus miracles is He turned water into wine, and it wasn't just any wine, it was a great wine, AGED wine.
If our scientists today could travel back in time to that very day that Jesus turned water instantly to wine, and that scientist were to examine and test that wine to see how old it was, they would say "This wine is dated to be over a hundred years old" yet in reality it is but a few seconds old.

Evolution is merely a teaching satan came up with to cause people to doubt the Word of God.

At least you didn't say that the wine Jesus provided at the wedding at Cana was non-alcoholic grape juice.

Thank God for small miracles.

You don't know much about wine. Wine does not age gracefully. There are very few wines that wine connoisseurs would recommend keeping for 5 years, let alone 100.

If Jesus made 100-year-old wine, it likely would have tasted like vinegar.

Makes me wonder what else you don't know much about, like evolution and methods for dating fossils.

 

[dcontroversal]

Speaking of Egypt, thank you for reminding me of Nazlet Khater Man.

That dude's skeleton is around 35,000 years old, according to (highly-biased, evolutionary/old-age) peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Fixed.

I see ole crack in the box is back HAHAH!