The great flood

[Bladerunner]

I've read somewhere that some folks thinks it may have been 12,000 years ago, ice age.

No doubt they were told that by our scientist?

 

[Bladerunner]

[#] born - died, name - age

[1st man]. 0 - 930 Adam - 930

Gen. 4:25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth:
For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed [instead of Abel], whom Cain slew.

Gen. 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son
in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

[2th]. 130-1042 Seth - 912

Gen. 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

Gen.4:26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos:
then began men [to call upon] the name of the Lord.


[3th]. 235-1140 Enos - 905

Gen. 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:


[4th]. 325-1235 Cainan - 910

Gen. 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:


[5th]. 395-1290 Mahalaleel - 895

Gen. 5:15And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:


[6th]. 460-1422 Jared - 962

Gen. 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:


[7th]. 622 - 987 Enoch - 365 he was [translated]

-Adam was alive when Enoch was , but died before Enoch was translated.

And Enoch also, [the seventh] from Adam,[ prophesied of these],
saying, Behold, [the Lord cometh with] ten thousands of his saints,


- this [the word about the comming kingdom, when Christ returns] ,
could have been preached to all alive, even to Adam on.

Gen. 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

[8th]. 687 - 1656 Methuselah - 969
5:25And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:


[9th]. 874 - 1651 Lamech - 777

-Adam dies at age 930, before Noah was born,

Adam was alive when this physical decendents where walking the earth,
Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, [Enoch], Methuselah, Lamech.
not to mention all the sons and daughters not mentioned.


[Enoch] also was translated at [987] before Noah was born.

5:28And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning
our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.

[10]. 1056 - 2109 Noah - 953 and Noah walked with God

These are the generations of Noah:
Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations,

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person,
[a preacher of righteousness], bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

-Noah was alive when these forfathers of his where alive -
Lamech, Methuselah , Jared, Mahalaleel, Cainan , Enos,
7 generations where all alive at the same time.

1556 sons Shem, Ham, Japheth

And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

- Methuselah died same year as flood 1656, Lamech 1651 ,
1422 Jared, 1290 Mahalaleel

1656 flood came

1657 dry land found

-


not sure if all my math is correct above

not sure what you trying to do here. but you can put the flood in after the death of Methuselah, In fact, the flood was prophesied to happen only after Methuselah died.

 

[Bladerunner]

The dates are taken right out of the text of Genesus. If archeology does not agree with the dates, I would begin by questioning archealogy.

Oldhermit,,,you said a mouth full here. It is pitiful that people had automatically accept the word of Man instead of the Word of GOD.

 

[Bladerunner]

Well, since I have no knowledge of the Hebrew language or any abilities to determine the reliability of one Hebrew text above another I have to rely on the scholarship of others on this and at this point I believe the Masoretic text to be the superior text. This of course does not mean that my opinion may not change. Regardless of which text one uses, I do not believe any difference in the ages of the patriarchs recorded would effect the overall outcome in any significant way. But, let us just assume for the time being that the Masoretic is correct. If it is, then we are given the age of the patriarchs at the birth of each child in the succeeding seed line. We know how old they were when their sons were born and we know hoe old they were when the died. The rest is a simple matter of addition.

Not saying anything about the dates,,,,, But am saying the LXX reflex the original text (OT BOOKS) back to 3 rd century BC. The Mesoretic has been edited up to and around the 8th century AD (CE). It (LXX) has been shown to be more accurate.

 

[Bladerunner]

I've been reading lately the Hebraic roots version Revised Edition Containing The Tanak and Ketuvim Netzarim. Translation Made from Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Sources. It's been interesting though wow there are many names and wording I can't even pronounce haha..

Reading Hebrew will not help you...The old Language of Hebrew is only spoken in ceremonial (i.e. temple rituals) these days.

 

[Bladerunner]

oops forgot And as we know magnetic forces can not meet thats why we spin and we rotate.. theres no way water can find its level not under theese conditions lol.

This has nothing to with how the flood not happenin... this just says there is missing scripture..

How the flood happen, the Bible tells you WHY do you suggest otherwise.

The Bible tells you about the earth, it tells you about the water above the Firmament and the water under(and on) the earth.WHY DO YOU DOUBT?

 

[Bladerunner]

Sort of though I saw that in a English standard version as well, seems though after just looking up afew more versions a few list as Heli as well as Eli.

Mary go round of translations lol.

New International Version
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

New Living Translation
Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.

English Standard Version
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Berean Study Bible
Jesus Himself was about thirty years old when He began His ministry. He was known as the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Berean Literal Bible
And Jesus beginning, was Himself about thirty years old, being son as was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli,

New American Standard Bible
When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

King James Bible
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Holman Christian Standard Bible
As He began His ministry, Jesus was about 30 years old and was thought to be the son of Joseph, son of Heli,

International Standard Version
Jesus himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. He was (as legally calculated) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

NET Bible
So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

New Heart English Bible
Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Eli,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But Yeshua was about thirty years old, and he was considered the son of Yoseph, son of Heli,

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Jesus was about 30 years old when he began [his ministry]. Jesus, so people thought, was the son of Joseph, son of Eli,

New American Standard 1977
And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

Jubilee Bible 2000
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

King James 2000 Bible
And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

American King James Version
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

American Standard Version
And Jesus himself, when he began to teach , was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the'son of Heli,

Douay-Rheims Bible
And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,

Darby Bible Translation
And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,

English Revised Version
And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Webster's Bible Translation
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

Weymouth New Testament
And He--Jesus--when He began His ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (it was supposed)

World English Bible
Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Young's Literal Translation
And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

I am sorry but I will stick with my KJV. Have you ever played a silly game where ten people line up and the first person in line tells the second person something. The second person then tells the third person in line what was said. By the time you get to the tenth person, the story in most all cases is totally and completely different.

Now take all of the above versions of the KJV. Apply the above game to them. The next time they are rewritten because they will reflect the signs of the times. Will they be different,,,,Probably,,,,,What about the next time and the next and the next.

 

[Bladerunner]

Yup but that doesnt explain it cause tohe tower of babel doesnt mention races.. it just said devide there language..?

No it places people throughout the world. Gen 11:9..." Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."

 

[Bladerunner]

dunooo nut over here i have seen a real life dinosaw skeleton... theres no mention of them in th bible.. go figure..missing scripture perhaps ?

How could they be,,,,,the word dinosaur was not invented (lol) --in the dictionary until around 1870's.
try looking at the word 'behemoth' with a tail the size of a cedar tree....Cedar tree can grow up to 35 feet in length. There are other examples but the dinosaurs were there and probably still here in places were Man is kept out of.

 

[oldhermit]

Not saying anything about the dates,,,,, But am saying the LXX reflex the original text (OT BOOKS) back to 3 rd century BC. The Mesoretic has been edited up to and around the 8th century AD (CE). It (LXX) has been shown to be more accurate.

Well, I don't know anything about the Hebrew language but I do know something about Greek and Greek manuscripts. If the same principle holds true, it is never preferable to set any translation above the original language. The LXX is nothing more than a translation.

 

[Bladerunner]

In Greek, the name is Ἡλεὶ. Do you see the small accent mark in the beginning? Its a breathing mark making the "h" sound when reading the name. So some translators decided to add it as a letter to English transcription, some did not. The person is still the same, though.

The "'" you speak of is a Breath of GOD. Like 'HEY' with the e sounding like an ' a '

 

[Bladerunner]

I find most Biblical arguments regarding the age of the earth or nature of the flood to be flawed at best. God says he created the earth and universe and I believe that to be. To make arguments using physics and scientific means seems to put limits on God. God has no limits!
Frethermore, if God intended us to know all the details of how the universe evolved he could have filled books and more books with exactly how and the dates it happened. Instead he filled a book with the very important story of Jesus Christ. Jesus who saved us from our sins and gave us eternal life. This other stuff is milk for babies.

Mr. Embankment .... The Bible is not only the story of Jesus Christ but also the History of Mankind. MIlk for babies????? not really sure I understand.....

 

[Bladerunner]

Well, I don't know anything about the Hebrew language but I do know something about Greek and Greek manuscripts. If the same principle holds true, it is never preferable to set any translation above the original language. The LXX is nothing more than a translation.

I agree however, the Mesoretic Text is also a copy of the originals that were in OLDer Hebrew. The Roman Hebrew (of the Masoretic) written around the 10th century. By the way, the Koine Greek of old was used by the scribes during Alexander's time.. It too is not used any more today except in ceremonial events.

ref. Preachers Institute, The World's Premier Online Orthodox Christian Homiletics Resource[/COLOR]

 

[Bladerunner]

How do they know noah was jewish... i mean he could have been a brit who ended up on dry land on mount ararat haha

Who said Noah was Jewish.....Abraham came way on down the line.

 

[trofimus]

Well, I don't know anything about the Hebrew language but I do know something about Greek and Greek manuscripts. If the same principle holds true, it is never preferable to set any translation above the original language. The LXX is nothing more than a translation.

Not always, you must take some context into consideration too.

Modern Greek New Testament from the 21st century would not be better than the old Latin translation from the 1st century, even though Greek is the language of the originals.

Why? Because the 21 centuries of transmission errors, editions, paraphrases etc got into the text, original languge or not.

So when we have the translation much much much much older than some copies made in original languages, it is surely preferable to use this source, if we have some evidence, it was regarded as a reliable source in its time.

There is also one very significant reason for using the LXX as the source, not linguistic, but theological - New Testament writers and the first church used LXX as their Scripture. So if you do not want inconsistency between NT and OT, you should use both in Greek. If you read the masoretic texts of the OT, you are not reading the same Bible first Church and apostles read.

 

[oldhermit]

Not always, you must take some context into consideration too.

Modern Greek New Testament from the 21st century would not be better than the old Latin translation from the 1st century, even though Greek is the language of the originals.

Why? Because the 21 centuries of transmission errors, editions, paraphrases etc got into the text, original languge or not.

So when we have the translation much much much much older than some copies made in original languages, it is surely preferable to use this source, if we have some evidence, it was regarded as a reliable source in its time.

There is also one very significant reason for using the LXX as the source, not linguistic, but theological - New Testament writers and the first church used LXX as their Scripture. So if you do not want inconsistency between NT and OT, you should use both in Greek. If you read the masoretic texts of the OT, you are not reading the same Bible first Church and apostles read.

Yes, I understand about the possible problems with mush later MSS. This was the problem with the creation of the Erasmus text. The LXX was not the only text used by the first century Jewish community. In the Temple, it is more likely they used the Hebrew MSS. The LXX was created for the Hellenistic Jews whose first language was Greek. The LXX would have been more likely to have been read in the synagogues of such communities. However, we do know that the Hebrew alone writer quotes from the LXX no less than 33 times. The gospel writes quoted from the LXX more often than not. Even Paul quoted from it quite a number of time in his letters. All of this gives credibility to the LXX as a legitimate translation but all of the OT quotes are not from the LXX which tells they also used the older Hebrew tests as well.

 

[oldhermit]

I agree however, the Mesoretic Text is also a copy of the originals that were in OLDer Hebrew. The Roman Hebrew (of the Masoretic) written around the 10th century. By the way, the Koine Greek of old was used by the scribes during Alexander's time.. It too is not used any more today except in ceremonial events.

ref. Preachers Institute, The World's Premier Online Orthodox Christian Homiletics Resource[/COLOR]

Yes, and by the same token, there are different versions of the LXX and these do not always agree. Whenever a consensus cannot be reached between variants of the LXX, translators will usually fall back on the Hebrew MSS.

 

[trofimus]

Yes, I understand about the possible problems with mush later MSS. This was the problem with the creation of the Erasmus text. The LXX was not the only text used by the first century Jewish community. In the Temple, it is more likely they used the Hebrew MSS. The LXX was created for the Hellenistic Jews whose first language was Greek. The LXX would have been more likely to have been read in the synagogues of such communities.

I dont think this is relevant for us even if this can be true. We are not Jews, but Christians, The Christian use of the OT, the first Church's use, this is what inerests us.

However, we do know that the Hebrew alone writer quotes from the LXX no less than 33 times. The gospel writes quoted from the LXX more often than not. Even Paul quoted from it quite a number of time in his letters. All of this gives credibility to the LXX as a legitimate translation...

Yes, NT writers did use LXX as the first Church did. Why do not we, then?

... but all of the OT quotes are not from the LXX which tells they also used the older Hebrew tests as well.

It depends. Some quotations seem to be paraphrases and some are not found neither in LXX nor in a massoretic texts. So we do not know if they used some other hebrew texts or some other Greek translations. Everything is possible. We must realize they did not own books like we do. Many quotations can be from memory only.

All in all, LXX is still the best source we can get. Not 100%, but much more closer to the first Church use than the Jewish texts from the middle ages...when, therefore, LXX and masoretic texts differ, LXX should have a priority for Christians.

 

[Adstar]

We all know this story of the old testiment. How God flooded the world, and the only people saved where two of each species of animals and Noah and his family.
After doing a little research, i discovered somthing disturbing.
We know of the other ancient civilizations of that time. And there have been written records kept and written during that time that the flood was supposed to happen. And none of them mentioned being drowned by water or anything regarding a flood.
By this, people conclude that the flood never happened.

Now, lol, Im not saying that I beleive this but I want to know what you all think.

Oh and please dont get too heated. The threads next door can hear ya you know

Wish i had seen this thread before...

Many cultures in the world who are in very remote locations from each other have stories of a great flood that flooded the world..

According to the account Noah and His family where the only people on earth to survive.. Later in the Bible the decendants of Noah built the city and a tower called Babel.. This lead to God dispersing and people all over the earth and changing their languages... This is why cultures in diverse places have a flood story.. Now some cultures or civilizations would have fogotten their flood story..

But the fact that so many have a great world flood story like civilizations seperated by oceans.. Adds validity to the Biblical flood story which is followed up with the mankind dispersal story in the story of the Tower of Babel..

So all those other cultures are all decendants of Noah.. They are not different peoples who survived the flood using different means or they are not peoples who's ancestors where in a place on earth that avoided being flooded.. They all come from Noah and his Family..

 

[oldhermit]

I dont think this is relevant for us even if this can be true. We are not Jews, but Christians, The Christian use of the OT, the first Church's use, this is what inerests us.


Yes, NT writers did use LXX as the first Church did. Why do not we, then?



It depends. Some quotations seem to be paraphrases and some are not found neither in LXX nor in a massoretic texts. So we do not know if they used some other hebrew texts or some other Greek translations. Everything is possible. We must realize they did not own books like we do. Many quotations can be from memory only.

All in all, LXX is still the best source we can get. Not 100%, but much more closer to the first Church use than the Jewish texts from the middle ages...when, therefore, LXX and masoretic texts differ, LXX should have a priority for Christians.

The reason the early Church used the LXX so much was not necessarily because it was superior to the Hebrew texts but simply because more often than not, that was all they had and for many, it may have been all they had ever known. The LXX was written in the first or second century BC. Unfortunately, the oldest MSS of the Hebrew text that we have dates from about the same time so we do not have anything earlier to compare it with. If you prefer the LXX text, that is fine. I do not have a problem with that. Personally, I question the superiority of any translation over the original language text.