NOAH 950 YEARS OLD? NOT!!!
Ronal J. Baker
and fifty years; and he died." I don't care how you cut it, or how
you argue it, humans did not live 950 years. The other names and
the length of days for them given in Genesis 5 has led the world
on a wild goose chase because a few religionists did not fully
understand what was intended. Religionist claims that the
descendants of Adam lived these long lives is dead wrong as well.
Religionists have failed to recognize that the verses describing
the length of lives pertained to the length of time species of
certain life forms existed. Gen 9:29 was not discussing one man
called Noah, but the Noahites collectively called Noah. Before
the flood the Noahite tribe, or the Neanderthals lived for 600
years, and for 350 after the flood. The Noahites were the first
humans to live on this earth. Adam was the first ancestor in
evolutionary terms, but not the first human. This is another myth
dumped on the world by religionist mistranslations. The
Neanderthals were not a bunch of stupid grunting cavemen, but a
group of highly intelligent humans without the benefits of a
material world, nor the means to effectively communicate in
writing. The name of the mother of the Noahites was given in
Jewish legend as Bathenosh, which means "the mother of the human
race." Eve, as Gen 3:20 proclaims was "the mother of all living,"
which means she was the evolutionary mother of birds, other
reptiles, animals and of course man.
tr...@utdallas.edu
> Genesis 9:29 records "And all the days of Noah were nine hundred
> and fifty years; and he died." I don't care how you cut it, or how
> you argue it, humans did not live 950 years.
Real open minded Baker. By the way, how do you KNOW they didn't. What
makes you the final authority? Were you there?
> the length of days for them given in Genesis 5 has led the world
> on a wild goose chase because a few religionists did not fully
> understand what was intended.
How do you propose the few religionists (whoever that is) go about
understanding what was intended other than reading the Bible for what it
says. If Genesis does not mean exactly what it says, then who is to say
that your evolution theory is better than any other.
> Religionist claims that the
> descendants of Adam lived these long lives is dead wrong as well.
> Religionists have failed to recognize that the verses describing
> the length of lives pertained to the length of time species of
> certain life forms existed. Gen 9:29 was not discussing one man
> called Noah, but the Noahites collectively called Noah. Before
> the flood the Noahite tribe, or the Neanderthals lived for 600
> years, and for 350 after the flood. The Noahites were the first
> humans to live on this earth. Adam was the first ancestor in
> evolutionary terms, but not the first human.
Where do you get this stuff? Are we just to take your word for it?
> Eve, as Gen 3:20 proclaims was "the mother of all living,"
> which means she was the evolutionary mother of birds, other
> reptiles, animals and of course man.
>
OOOH...Is thaaaat what it means. Thank you for cluing us all in.
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????????????????
--
Phil
>Genesis 9:29 records "And all the days of Noah were nine hundred
>and fifty years; and he died." I don't care how you cut it, or how
>you argue it, humans did not live 950 years. The other names and
>the length of days for them given in Genesis 5 has led the world
>on a wild goose chase because a few religionists did not fully
>understand what was intended. Religionist claims that the
>descendants of Adam lived these long lives is dead wrong as well.
>Religionists have failed to recognize that the verses describing
>the length of lives pertained to the length of time species of
>certain life forms existed. Gen 9:29 was not discussing one man
>called Noah, but the Noahites collectively called Noah. Before
>the flood the Noahite tribe, or the Neanderthals lived for 600
>years, and for 350 after the flood. The Noahites were the first
>humans to live on this earth. Adam was the first ancestor in
>evolutionary terms, but not the first human. This is another myth
>dumped on the world by religionist mistranslations. The
>Neanderthals were not a bunch of stupid grunting cavemen, but a
>group of highly intelligent humans without the benefits of a
>material world, nor the means to effectively communicate in
>writing. The name of the mother of the Noahites was given in
>Jewish legend as Bathenosh, which means "the mother of the human
>race." Eve, as Gen 3:20 proclaims was "the mother of all living,"
>which means she was the evolutionary mother of birds, other
>reptiles, animals and of course man.
>
Hey Ronal, I've seen some of your "theology" but this... this is nuts.
It has no biblical basis whatsoever. I don't recall Genesis saying
"And God created half-man; half-ape" You say it's rediculous to think
Noah lived that long and yet what do you write? I think your having a
little fun with Christians, i.e. pulling our leg.
God Bless.
Phil
***************
The Unofficial Shepherd's Chapel Page
http://www.execpc.com/~pnajera/tgsmain.html
***************
And in that day (the LORD's day) shall the deaf hear
the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind
shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.
-Isa 29:18
Chris
>and fifty years; and he died." I don't care how you cut it, or how
>you argue it, humans did not live 950 years.
This is an interesting claim. Why do you say this? Do you have any
research or scientific proof that there never existed a man who
lived 950 years? I am not really interested in arguing whether or
not
the 950 years listed in Genesis for Noah (or for any of the other
long-lived individuals) refer to specific people or their family
lines; I don't really think it's very important. However, I would
caution you against making such a statement without some kind of
evidence to back it up. Just because there are no 950 year old
people today does not mean that you can prove there never were.
>Religionists have failed to recognize that the verses describing
>the length of lives pertained to the length of time species of
>certain life forms existed. Gen 9:29 was not discussing one man
>called Noah, but the Noahites collectively called Noah. Before
>the flood the Noahite tribe, or the Neanderthals lived for 600
>years, and for 350 after the flood.
Once again, this is an interesting theory: what kind of research has
led to this Noah = Neanderthal statement? Surely you're not saying
this because the names both start with "N"!
>Adam was the first ancestor in
>evolutionary terms, but not the first human. This is another myth
>dumped on the world by religionist mistranslations.
All I know is that a literal reading of Genesis 2 clearly indicates
Adam as the first human being. Any other interpretation would
require, in my view, rather excessive rationalizing which is always
dangerous ground when reading God's Word: one can make the Bible say
pretty much whatever one wants if one rationalizes a passage enough
or takes verses out of strict context.
>Eve, as Gen 3:20 proclaims was "the mother of all living,"
>which means she was the evolutionary mother of birds, other
>reptiles, animals and of course man.
Pardon me, but this is ludicrous. Are you really saying that Eve
spawned a crocodile sometime during her life? Genesis describes Eve
without much doubt on the matter as a human, and I cannot see how
even excessive rationalizing could lead one away from this
conclusion. Futhermore, even if one discards the literal seven
24-hour days of creation and replaces them with seven indeterminate
lengths of time, all other creatures on the earth were clearly made
prior, in chronological terms, to the creation of any human.
Darel E. Paul
>From: tr...@utdallas.edu
>Subject: Re: NOAH 950 YEARS OLD? NOT!!!
>Date: 14 Mar 1996 13:52:23 GMT
>Ronal J. Baker (bak...@cdsnet.net) wrote:
>> Genesis 9:29 records "And all the days of Noah were nine hundred
>> and fifty years; and he died." I don't care how you cut it, or how
>> you argue it, humans did not live 950 years.
>Real open minded Baker. By the way, how do you KNOW they didn't. What
>makes you the final authority? Were you there?
Maybe Noah really did live 950 years. But if Noah really did die at the ripe
old age of 950, then he was not human. If he was not human, then it seems
unlikely that Genesis has anything worthwhile to say to humans since none of
its events concern us. Rather, the book was intended for beings who live
800-1000 years. We should instead seek out these beings and return their book
to them. Considering other threads in this group, maybe he was a dinosaur?
{{NOTE: Dino discussions are off-limits!!! -sma }}
Darel
Ronal J. Baker
trae wrote: "...how do you KNOW they didn't. What makes you the
RB: Thanks for the laugh your post gave me. I needed that.
trae: "...If Genesis does not mean exactly what it says, then who
is to say that your evolution theory is better than any other?
RB: Genesis DOES mean exactly what it says. That's the point I
have been making with my posts. It is the mistranslations of
of the Bible, and consequently the misinterpretations you have
received that are wrong. Why do you assume without question that
the translation you have is absolutely true and without error? Is
it because this is what you have been told? Have you bought into
the religionists claims that the bible is inerrant in its present
state? Were the translators of your Bible inspired to translate
from God himself?
trae: Where do you get this stuff? Are we just to take your word
for it?
RB: No don't take my word for it. Read and study the Bible for
yourself, and find these answers for yourself. If you still are
not convinced, please do us all a favor. Present your best
argument to the newsgroup that humans lived 600 to nearly 1000
years. Also include any scientific evidence you can find to
support your conclusions.
Ralph Akin
:Genesis 9:29 records "And all the days of Noah were nine hundred
Men have argued with their Creator for centuries. Kind of like the pot
arguing with the potter, and with as much effect. Or perhaps, RJB was
there and has observational proof to extend ...
:... Gen 9:29 was not discussing one man called Noah, but the Noahites
:collectively called Noah.
Interesting speculation ...
:... Eve, as Gen 3:20 proclaims was "the mother of all living,"
:which means she was the evolutionary mother of birds, other
:reptiles, animals and of course man.
misunderstood" .....
The Book, written over centuries by a number of authors under
inspiration of the Spirit (as it indicates internally) has proven itself
true for many, many years. Truly, it is misunderstood by many (even many
who would call themselves followers of Christ). But then, that which some
call "science" is an ever changing collection of hypotheses and theories.
Appears we will just have to depend on that which is the most reliable.
Ralph
Teri Lyn Smith
Mankind was created to live and not to die. Adam and Eve were placed in
the garden and there saw an example of what their creator, Jehovah,
wanted the earth to become. They would live forever and watch the earth
gradually become like Eden.
Their disobedience caused them to lose their right to life. Even though
they became imperfect they lived for many hundreds of years before dying
for their sin.
The bible and especially the book of Genesis tells an account of man's
beginning and is the only God endorced version of that incident. The
bible says many of the early humans lived long lives. Methuselah lived
longest of all.
If you feel that the bible is incorrect in what it says then that is your
opinion, nevertheless, it is not the opinion of the One who had the
creation account written down for us.
In the bible we are told that these things were written down for our
instruction so that we can become fully competent people. By learning
that our forefathers lived so long we can begin to grasp that living
forever is not just a dream.
Regards, Teri Lyn Smith
Ronal J. Baker
he died." I don't care how you cut it, or how you argue it,
humans did not live 950 years.
Darel wrote: Maybe Noah really did live 950 years. But if Noah
really did die at the ripe old age of 950, then he was not human.
If he was not human, then it seems unlikely that Genesis has
anything worthwhile to say to humans since none of its events
concern us. Rather, the book was intended for beings who live
800-1000 years. We should instead seek out these beings and
return their book to them....
Ronal Baker writes: Thank you for your input. I don't believe
there are may Anthropologists that would agree that humans that
lived before the flood lived much beyond 120 years we do today.
It makes sense that the Noahites, as the first species of
the human race lived for 950 years and then died out as a species.
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> Maybe Noah really did live 950 years. But if Noah really did die at the ripe
> old age of 950, then he was not human. If he was not human, then it seems
> unlikely that Genesis has anything worthwhile to say to humans since none of
> its events concern us. Rather, the book was intended for beings who live
> 800-1000 years. We should instead seek out these beings and return their book
> to them. Considering other threads in this group, maybe he was a dinosaur?
>
>Fr. John W. Morris responds:
The Bible is a book about God and our relationship with God. It does contain
historical and scientific errors. However, historical and sciencific facts
are not the message of the Bible. What is important is not how long Noah
lived, but what he did and its meaning for us as Christians. Whether he lived
to be 950 or 75 years old is not important. 950 is probably a way of saying
that he lived a long time.
Fr. John +
Ronal J. Baker
not live 950 years....The name of the mother of the Noahites was
the human race."
is nuts. It has no biblical basis whatsoever. I don't recall
Genesis saying "And God created half-man; half-ape"
RB: Phil I have no theology. Theology assumes that one has a
belief in a god. I do not. I am a biblcal historian, and the
first biblical evolutionist. Genesis does not say "And god
created half-man; half-ape," but it does say that Noah's father
was Lamech who is said to have lived for 777 years. Lamech was
obviously one of the half-man, half-apemen, such as Homo Erectus.
Phil wrote: You say it's rediculous to think Noah lived that long
and yet what do you write? I think your having a little fun with
Christians, i.e. pulling our leg. God Bless. Phil
RB: Phil, I am serious about this. This is no joke. If you have
read some of my posts you will see that while they seem to be
outrageous, I am trying to get them to take a moment of their time
to re-examine what it is they believe about the bible, especially
Genesis, and if the evidence is not there to document that the
giants were human, or that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, to
question their pastor about the lack of evidence. Thanks for
asking. Ronal.
David Wallis
The only reason not to believe that Adam lived to be 950 years old is
that we have never seen people live to be that old. But that doesn't
mean that it couldn't have happened. Other ancient myths give
lifespans that are a hundred times as long as those of Genesis!
There may be some environmental reason why people lived longer then.
I'd say that until we know more about the conditions being reported on
in Genesis, it would be unwise to assume that the numbers given in the
geneaologies are totally inaccurate. After all, it was once assumed
that the numbers given for the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel
were mere approximations until Edwin R. Thiele showed how to reconcile
them.
Rawn Chad
To say that you do not believe that Noah lived 950 years is to say that
you do not believe in miracles. God's Will takes precedence over
everything, and it was God's Will for Noah to live 950 years.
Chad Rawn
Dave Washburn
>Genesis 9:29 records "And all the days of Noah were nine hundred
>and fifty years; and he died." I don't care how you cut it, or how
>you argue it, humans did not live 950 years.
My, we do have a high opinion of ourself, don't we? Exactly who
appointed you to be the final judge of this? There's no good reason
why some antediluvian conditions couldn't have allowed for such a
lifespan.
>The other names and
>the length of days for them given in Genesis 5 has led the world
>on a wild goose chase because a few religionists did not fully
>understand what was intended. Religionist claims that the
>descendants of Adam lived these long lives is dead wrong as well.
What's a "religionist" and why do you have such a blind prejudice
against them? This and your other post attacking "religionists" show
that you're not engaging in reasoned debate here, you're wildly
flailing with your verbal sword at some supposed group of people that
you think threaten you in some way. I think DSM IV calls that
"paranoia."
>Religionists have failed to recognize that the verses describing
>the length of lives pertained to the length of time species of
>certain life forms existed.
And your source and authority for this is...?
>Gen 9:29 was not discussing one man
>called Noah, but the Noahites collectively called Noah. Before
>the flood the Noahite tribe, or the Neanderthals lived for 600
>years, and for 350 after the flood. The Noahites were the first
>humans to live on this earth.
I repeat: your source and authority for this is...? Paranoia again?
>Adam was the first ancestor in
>evolutionary terms, but not the first human. This is another myth
>dumped on the world by religionist mistranslations.
Mistranslations of what? The Bible? How about some specific
examples, Ron? So far all you've done is whine.
>The
>Neanderthals were not a bunch of stupid grunting cavemen, but a
>group of highly intelligent humans without the benefits of a
>material world,
HUH???????????? So they were highly developed, but non-corporeal,
humans? They had advanced brains but no bodies, and no material world
to live in, right? If your goal is to provide this group some comic
relief, you're doing an excellent job.
>nor the means to effectively communicate in
>writing. The name of the mother of the Noahites was given in
>Jewish legend as Bathenosh, which means "the mother of the human
>race."
Excuse me? "Bath" means "daughter," not "mother." This name means
"daughter of a man."
>Eve, as Gen 3:20 proclaims was "the mother of all living,"
>which means she was the evolutionary mother of birds, other
>reptiles, animals and of course man.
Oh, this is great! I haven't laughed this hard in a week! Go learn
some Hebrew before you make another such ludicrous statement.
Ronal J. Baker
our relationship with God.
RB: Fr. John, at last we meet. The Bible is a book, in my opinion,
about the gods of ancient history. Your interpretation of it must
therefore be a way for you to relate to those gods.
Fr. John: It does contain historical and scientific errors.
However, historical and sciencific facts are not the message of
the Bible.
RB: Fr. John you are an honest man. You are the only religionist
with the guts to admit that there are errors in the Bible. If the
bible is not historically and scientifically true then why should
anyone believe the rest of it?
Fr. John: What is important is not how long Noah lived, but what
he did and its meaning for us as Christians. Whether he lived to
be 950 or 75 years old is not important. 950 is probably a way
of saying that he lived a long time.
RB: There are a million Christians that might disagree with
your statements that the bible is not historically and
scientifically important, because most believe that their bible
is absolutely inerrant. If the bible is not inerrant then they
might consider tossing it away as untrue in other theological
matters.
Ronal J. Baker
were placed in the garden and there saw an example of what their
creator, Jehovah, wanted the earth to become. They would live
forever and watch the earth gradually become like Eden. Their
disobedience caused them to lose their right to life. Even though
they became imperfect they lived for many hundreds of years
before dying for their sin.
Teri this is Ronal Baker. Thank you for your reply. I could
fathom the theology that before Adam and Eve sinned they could
have lived for such a long time, because before they sinned,
theology claims that they could live forever as you claim. But
after their so-called sin they still lived for what would have
seemed forever. What evidence outside theological claims of
faith and belief is there for such claims?
Teri wrote: The bible and especially the book of Genesis tells
an account of man's beginning and is the only God endorced
version of that incident. The bible says many of the early humans
lived long lives. Methuselah lived longest of all.
RB: One meaning for Methuselah is "man of the dart." I beieve
that the Methuselah's were the men of the dart, or primitive
apemen that lived for nearly a 1000 years before the flood.
Teri wrote: If you feel that the bible is incorrect in what it
says then that is your opinion, nevertheless, it is not the
opinion of the One who had the creation account written down for
us.
RB: I respect your opinion Teri. YOu can believe as you chose.
You should not however, speak for Moses, because Moses, the
writer of at least one Genesis account, spoke of evolution, not
creation.
Teri wrote: In the bible we are told that these things were
written down for our instruction so that we can become fully
competent people. By learning that our forefathers lived so long
we can begin to grasp that living forever is not just a dream.
Regards,
RB: I agree that the Bible has very good morale instructions for
man. The Bible contains a very accurate picture of history, and
knowing how we descended from our early ancestors is not only
educational, but would correct most, if not all of the inaccurate
evolutionary and creationary claims.
David Wallis
Actually, Chad, I believe in miracles, and I believe there may be some
historical truth being reported in Gen 5:5 that Adam lived a total of
930 years (note correction), but I don't believe that a miracle is the
proper explanation.
All the ancients are reported to have lived far longer than current
life expectancies. Read the rest of chapter 5. Surely if there is any
historical truth to these reports, it is not that there were a series
of miracles, one for each patriarch in the list. Also note how late in
life they had their firstborns! No, surely these people aged (matured)
more slowly than we do today.
Chris Dahler
> Present your best
> argument to the newsgroup that humans lived 600 to nearly 1000
> years. Also include any scientific evidence you can find to
> support your conclusions.
I cannot prove that such an event took place, but I can offer a bit of
philosophical considerations:
1. Mr. Baker is apparently denying the possibility of 950 year old
humans based solely on the fact that there is no human alive now who is
950 years old or even remotely approaches this age. Granted. However,
Mr. Baker has yet to provide clear proof other than his observation of
present day events that this is not possible. The Bible makes no claim
that anyone who lived much later than Abraham lived anywhere over 120
years old, so the Bible is not claiming that 950 year old humans exist
today or even throughout much of Biblical history. This is an important
point that Mr. Baker keeps missing: the Bible says that some humans lived
to be 950 years old near the dawn of time. The Bible does not say that
humans live 950 years now or even shortly after that early time.
Therefore the argument that the Bible is wrong based solely on the
evidence that there are no 950 year old humans today is not a valid one.
A true sceintific outlook would dictate that you look at the actual claim
the Bible is making before dismissing it as false. Can Mr. Baker prove
that there did not exist a 950 year old human several thousand years in
the past? Short of finding his bones and performing tests on these, no,
of course he can't. Can I prove that a human did exist who lived for 950
years apart from reading it in the Bible and accepting that as fact
(which, by the way, is not a bad attitude to have!)? No, I certainly
cannot, for the same reason that Mr. Baker can't prove his claim. My
point to Mr. Baker: don't be so eager to toss out a passage of the Bible
because you don't see such a thing happening around you today. You
cannot prove such a thing did not exist any more than I can prove it did.
2. Food for thought: what would a man from many of our past
civilizations which can be proven to have had an average lifespan of no
more than 25 - 35 years have thought of you if you told him that people
in our present-day civilization routinely lived to 80 or more, and some
lived to more than 100? He would think you were nuts and scoff at you,
just as Mr. Baker scoffs at the Bible when it tells him that Noah lived
to 950 years old.
In Christ,
Chris
Piet van Oostrum
RC> To say that you do not believe that Noah lived 950 years is to say that
RC> you do not believe in miracles. God's Will takes precedence over
RC> everything, and it was God's Will for Noah to live 950 years.
Actually, you don't have to believe in miracles. One of the mysteries of
life is why do we die? There is not much biological or medical reson for us
to die. Our body can regenerate itself quite effectively.
One of the explanations for death is from an evolutionary point of view. I
do not believe in evolution, but I find the explanation interesting.
It roughly goes as follows:
Some diseases don't have much chance to get widespread, as the people that
get them die before they get offspring. But a disease that has only a
severe effect after a person has had most of his/her offspring gets a
chance to reproduce itself. For disease you can also read mutation. Now
these mutations in the long run spread throughout a whole race, and limit
the lifespan of its members.
Now this makes it quite acceptable that the first people lived much longer,
because this kind of mutations had had not much change to spread. If you
also take into account that after the flood the protection against cosmic
radiation may have been diminished, this may be a good natural explanation
why after the flood the lifespan of people drastically decreased.
--
Piet van Oostrum <pi...@cs.ruu.nl>
http://www.cs.ruu.nl/~piet
Ralph Akin
<re: Noah living 950 years>
>The Bible is a book about God and our relationship with God.
>Christians. Whether he lived to be 950 or 75 years old is not important.
>950 is probably a way of saying that he lived a long time.
Fr. John +
While I would quick to agree that it matters not (to us) how long Noah
or any other person has lived, facts and figures mentioned in Scripture
ARE quite important. Did the flood happen? Did 'the Garden of Eden'
exist? Did Adam sin? Did Christ actually rise from the dead?
The first two questions are relatively 'unimportant'. If Adam did not
sin, however, there is simply no need for Christ. If Christ did not rise,
then our faith is in vain. Faith is constructed on the foundation of
fact, not fantasy.
Either the Scripture is what It says of Itself or It is not. To
presuppose we can pick and choose what is fact and what is fiction in an
imperfect work results in what I call 'Dalmation theology' (a spot here
and a spot there). Or perhaps there is some special revelation which has
bestowed truth-detection on some special individual? I have yet to be
exposed to such in all of human history.
"God is not a man, the He should lie" (Numbers 23:19)
Ralph
G.M.Davison
On 18 Mar 1996, Ronal J. Baker wrote:
Ronal J. Baker wrote: ...I don't care how you cut it humans did
not live 950 years....The name of the mother of the Noahites was
given in Jewish legend as Bathenosh, which means "the mother of
the human race."
Gary writes: You assume this simply because humans today only live a
maximum of 120 years, with most only 70-80. How do you know this has
always been the case?
You yourself have mentioned the water canopy, which existed until the
flood, and this explains man's longevity.
Phil wrote: Hey Ronal, I've seen some of your "theology" but this
is nuts. It has no biblical basis whatsoever. I don't recall
Genesis saying "And God created half-man; half-ape"
RB: Phil I have no theology. Theology assumes that one has a
belief in a god. I do not. I am a biblcal historian, and the
first biblical evolutionist. Genesis does not say "And god
created half-man; half-ape," but it does say that Noah's father
was Lamech who is said to have lived for 777 years. Lamech was
obviously one of the half-man, half-apemen, such as Homo Erectus.
Gary writes: Oh obviously, why didn't I see that?
BTW, have scientists managed to scrap together any "convincing" evidence
yet that Homo Erectus lived?
Phil wrote: You say it's rediculous to think Noah lived that long
and yet what do you write? I think your having a little fun with
Christians, i.e. pulling our leg. God Bless. Phil
RB: Phil, I am serious about this. This is no joke. If you have
read some of my posts you will see that while they seem to be
outrageous, I am trying to get them to take a moment of their time
to re-examine what it is they believe about the bible, especially
Genesis, and if the evidence is not there to document that the
giants were human, or that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, to
question their pastor about the lack of evidence. Thanks for
asking. Ronal.
Gary writes: All you are doing is suggesting alternative ideas which are
even more lacking in evidence. It seems like you are good at your job
because you have a good imagination!
ps. Jonah was swallowed by a big fish, and we don't know if it's a
whale. It's like assuming that adam & eve ate the apple, when all we
know is that it was fruit.
Gary.
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
If the
> bible is not historically and scientifically true then why should
> anyone believe the rest of it?
> Fr. John W. Morris responds:
Because the Bible tells us about God and our relationship with God. The truth
of the Bible does not depend on proof, but can only be recognized by faith.
If one has to prove the truth of the teaching of the Bible by proving that
everything in the Bible including scientific and historical accounts are
true, they one does not have faith. If one lacks faith there is no way that I
or anyone else can prove to them that the religious teachings of the Bible
are true.
Fr. John +
Dave Washburn
>RB: Genesis DOES mean exactly what it says. That's the point I
>have been making with my posts. It is the mistranslations of
>of the Bible, and consequently the misinterpretations you have
>received that are wrong. Why do you assume without question that
>the translation you have is absolutely true and without error? Is
>it because this is what you have been told? Have you bought into
>the religionists claims that the bible is inerrant in its present
>state? Were the translators of your Bible inspired to translate
>from God himself?
I read the Bible in Hebrew, the language it was written in. Do you?
If so, how about citing some authorities for your purported
"mistranslations"? If not, what is your basis for claiming all these
mistranslations? Precisely what has been mistranslated? How about
some specifics? I'll be glad to discuss the translation of particular
passages with you, but as long as you only deal in this kind of
generality we can't get anywhere.
>RB: No don't take my word for it. Read and study the Bible for
>yourself, and find these answers for yourself. If you still are
>not convinced, please do us all a favor. Present your best
>argument to the newsgroup that humans lived 600 to nearly 1000
>years. Also include any scientific evidence you can find to
>support your conclusions.
Cop-out. The text says what it says. You say it doesn't. Present
evidence that it doesn't really say those numbers, Ronal. You say
"Read and study the Bible for yourself" but then you diverge off into
questions of "scientific evidence" that humans once lived this long.
That's a subtle shift, but it's a shift nonetheless. How does
translating and interpreting the Bible show that these ages couldn't
happen? Either we're translating the Bible in specific passages or
we're arguing genetics, but mixing the two the way you just did is an
invalid method of argumentation.
Ronal J. Baker
he died." I don't care how you cut it, or how you argue it,
this? There's no good reason why some antediluvian conditions
couldn't have allowed for such a lifespan.
Dave this is Ronal Baker. If there was some antediluvian condition
that produced old age please share it with this newsgroup. I
believe that Gen 1:6-8 discussed a water canopy that would have
accounted for the large sizes of dinosaurs and other lifeforms,
but there is nothing known to science to suggest humans could have
lived this long.
DW: What's a "religionist" and why do you have such a blind
prejudice against them? This and your other post attacking
"religionists" show that you're not engaging in reasoned debate
here, you're wildly flailing with your verbal sword at some
supposed group of people that you think threaten you in some way.
I think DSM IV calls that "paranoia."
RB: A religionist is any person that has some sort of religious
agenda, be he a bible believer or otherwise. I don't mean to
reflect negatively on you if you are a religionist. You have the
right to believe any way you choose. Please allow me the same
privilege. Religionists have failed to recognize that the verses
describing the length of lives pertained to the length of time
species of certain life forms existed. If you fall into this
category, I am sorry I have hurt your feelings. Religionists do
not threaten me in any way, but I think by your post you seem to
feel threatened.
DW: And your source and authority for this is...?
RB: My source and authority for believing that the Bible was
discussing the Noahites collectively called Noah comes from my
heart, and common sense. Before the flood the Noahite tribe, or
the Neanderthals lived for 600 years, and for 350 after the flood.
The Noahites were the first humans to live on this earth.
DW: I repeat: your source and authority for this is...? Paranoia
again?
RB: Take a deep breath. Adam was the first ancestor in
evolutionary terms, but not the first human. This is another myth
dumped on the world by religionist mistranslations. The daughters
of Adam in Gen 6:1-4 that gave birth to the giants, were primitive
reptiles that gave birth to the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are
clearly identifiable in the Bible, which is my judgment authority.
DW: Mistranslations of what? The Bible? How about some specific
examples, Ron? So far all you've done is whine.
RB: Mistranslations of biblical scripture. The religions that
accept the Bible as their source of authority believe that the
giants were human mutants, Jonah was swallowed by a whale, Goliath
was a man, the flood was not global, the serpent talked and had
sex with a human female, etc., do you want more? The Neanderthals
were not a bunch of stupid grunting cavemen, but a group of
highly intelligent humans without the benefits of a material
world,
DW: HUH???????????? So they were highly developed, but
non-corporeal, humans? They had advanced brains but no bodies,
and no material world to live in, right? If your goal is to
provide this group some comic relief, you're doing an excellent
job.
RB: You are not doing so bad yourself. I think the rest of the
people that read what I said will understand it. The name of the
mother of the Noahites was given in Jewish legend as Bathenosh,
which means "the mother of the human race."
DW: Excuse me? "Bath" means "daughter," not "mother." This
name means "daughter of a man."
RB: I did not invent this definition. If you have a problem with
the interpretation then discuss it with a Hebrew expert. Eve, as
Gen 3:20 proclaims was "the mother of all living," which means
she was the evolutionary mother of birds, other reptiles, animals
and of course man.
DW: Oh, this is great! I haven't laughed this hard in a week!
Go learn some Hebrew before you make another such ludicrous
statement.
RB: I am glad you were amused. Ronal
Ronal J. Baker
if Noah really did die at the ripe old age of 950, then he was
not human. If he was not human, then it seems unlikely that
Genesis has anything worthwhile to say to humans since none of
its events concern us. Rather, the book was intended for beings
who live 800-1000 years. We should instead seek out these beings
and return their book to them. Considering other threads in this
group, maybe he was a dinosaur?
David Wallis wrote: The only reason not to believe that Adam
lived to be 950 years old is that we have never seen people live
to be that old. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't have
happened. Other ancient myths give lifespans that are a hundred
times as long as those of Genesis! There may be some environmental
reason why people lived longer then. I'd say that until we know
more about the conditions being reported on in Genesis, it would
be unwise to assume that the numbers given in the geneaologies
are totally inaccurate. After all, it was once assumed that the
numbers given for the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel
were mere approximations until Edwin R. Thiele showed how
to reconcile them.
This is Ronal Baker. There may be another reason why the Bible
records such long ages. Mistranslation. No human, before or after
the flood did or could live that long. Its just not humanly
possible.
Ronal J. Baker
>
>
To say that you do not believe that Noah lived 950 years is to
precedence over everything, and it was God's Will for Noah to
live 950 years. Chad Rawn
Chad this is Ronal Baker. You are right I don't believe in
miracles, at least not the kind I see on Christian religious
broadcasting. Why isn't it god's will that we still live such
long lives? What has changed with God that he allowed Noah and
many others before and after him to live so long, yet Abraham,
Moses, and David, which were all doing the will of their god did
not live past 120 years?
Ronal J. Baker
> On 18 Mar 1996, Ronal J. Baker wrote: ...I don't care how you
cut it humans did not live 950 years....The name of the mother of
the Noahites was given in Jewish legend as Bathenosh, which means
"the mother of the human race."
live a maximum of 120 years, with most only 70-80. How do you
know this has always been the case? You yourself have mentioned
the water canopy, which existed until the flood, and this
explains man's longevity.
The water canopy explains a lot of things, the most important of
which are evolution and the source of the flood waters. However,
the water canopy does not authenicate this kind of longevity.
Since it is my contention that the Bible has been horribly
mistranslated, then it is easy to poke holes in such ridiculous
theological claims as this one.
Phil wrote: Hey Ronal, I've seen some of your "theology" but this
is nuts. It has no biblical basis whatsoever. I don't recall
Genesis saying "And God created half-man; half-ape"
RB: Phil I have no theology. Theology assumes that one has a
belief in a god. I do not. I am a biblcal historian, and the
first biblical evolutionist. Genesis does not say "And god
created half-man; half-ape," but it does say that Noah's father
was Lamech who is said to have lived for 777 years. Lamech was
obviously one of the half-man, half-apemen, such as Homo Erectus.
Gary writes: Oh obviously, why didn't I see that? BTW, have
scientists managed to scrap together any "convincing" evidence
yet that Homo Erectus lived?
RB: I don't know, you will have to ask them that question.
Gary writes: All you are doing is suggesting alternative ideas
which are even more lacking in evidence. It seems like you are
good at your job because you have a good imagination!
RB: Gary, is there any evidence that you have seen anywhere that
would lead you to conclude that Noah could have lived 950 years?
Thank you, I do have a good imagination. The problem is that the
theologians unfortunately did not, and still do not.
Gary writes: Jonah was swallowed by a big fish, and we don't know
if it's a whale. It's like assuming that adam & eve ate the
apple, when all we know is that it was fruit.
RB: You can assume that the earth is flat, but that does not make
it so. Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, but a great fish. Why
can't you accept great fish? By the way, Adam and Eve did not eat
any fruit, but partook sexually of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, which represented the serpent. Ronal
Ronal J. Baker
>
Ralph Akin wrote: Men have argued with their Creator for
as much effect. Or perhaps, RJB was there and has observational
proof to extend ...
RJB: The original Creators of life were Father Heaven and Mother
Earth. Their generations were given in Gen 2:4. ...Eve, as Gen
3:20 proclaims was "the mother of all living," which means she
was the evolutionary mother of birds, other reptiles, animals and
of course man.
Ralph Akin wrote: And we are asked to accept that "a bunch of
religionists have misunderstood" ....The Book, written over
centuries by a number of authors under inspiration of the Spirit
(as it indicates internally) has proven itself true for many,
many years.
RJB: Ironic isn't it? Is it possible that the best minds in the
world living today have been deceived by the mistranslation of
this book we call the Bible? While I personally am convinced that
the history contained in the Bible is true, the world has truly
been deceived into thinking that the gods of the Bible were
what christians claim them to be. This to me is sad, because no
one wants to admit that they are wrong, and no matter how much
evidence is presented to show errancy in theology, few will see
it because their pride will not allow it. Ronal
Ronal J. Baker
My, we do have a high opinion of ourself, don't we? Exactly who
appointed you to be the final judge of this? There's no good
reason why some antediluvian conditions couldn't have allowed for
such a lifespan.
RJB: Antediluvian conditions did allow for the extreme sizes of
dinosaurs, and for large pussy willows, and insects, etc., but
there is no scientific evidence to support that humans could have
lived such long lives.
Dave wrote: What's a "religionist" and why do you have such a
blind prejudice against them? This and your other post attacking
"religionists" show that you're not engaging in reasoned debate
here, you're wildly flailing with your verbal sword at some
supposed group of people that you think threaten you in some way.
I think DSM IV calls that "paranoia."
RJB: You mean like you are doing to me?
Ronal J. Baker
says...
Ronal J. Baker" <bak...@cdsnet.net> wrote: Genesis DOES mean exactly what
it says. That's the point I have been making with my posts. It is the
mistranslations of of the Bible, and consequently the misinterpretations
you have received that are wrong. Why do you assume without question that
the translation you have is absolutely true and without error? Is it
because this is what you have been told? Have you bought into the
religionists claims that the bible is inerrant in its present state? Were
the translators of your Bible inspired to translate from God himself?
David Washburn wrote: I read the Bible in Hebrew, the language it was
written in. Do you?
RB: No I do not read the Bible in Hebrew. Though you may be an expert,
reading the Bible in Hebrew does not necessarily qualify you as an
expert.
DW: ...how about citing some authorities for your purported
"mistranslations"? If not, what is your basis for claiming all these
mistranslations? Precisely what has been mistranslated? How about
some specifics? I'll be glad to discuss the translation of particular
passages with you, but as long as you only deal in this kind of
generality we can't get anywhere.
RB: Fair enough. To begin my explanation, how many english versions of
the Bible are there? 50? 100? More? It does not really matter how many,
but what matters is, is what the translations say in each of these
versions. Take for example the following verse from Genesis 1:20 in the
KJV: "And God created great whales..." The Jerusalem Bible has "And God
created great sea-serpents..." Which translation is correct? A whale is
not a sea serpent. Does it matter which is which? If you or any reader
thinks it does not matter then you are terribly wrong. The identity of
the sea serpents is crucial to understanding many, many other verses in
the Bible. Examine one from the KJV in Job 9:13 "If God will not withdraw
his anger, the proud helpers do stoop under him." The Amplified Bible
has: "...the proud helpers of Rahab [arrogant monster of the sea] bow
under Him." The Jerusalem Bible has: "Rahab's minions still lie at his
feet." According to Isaiah the name Rahab identified the dragon in the
sea, or as he put it in Isaiah 27:1, Leviathan, crooked serpent, piercing
serpent, etc. You are an expert in Hebrew, explain these obvious
inconsistencies in translation. Is is "proud helpers," or is it "sea
serpents?" Now don't you cop out David.