How big would Noah's Ark have to be?

[Timreason]

I have just come across this video. Of course, some liberties were
taken, such as increasing numbers from two of each kind to 500 of each
kind. But even if we stuck with the biblical 'Two by two', I think we
can see that they wouldn't all fit, then of course, there's the problem
of all the food needed.

Whereas ships have been successfully built that are larger than the Ark
as described in the Bible, they were not wooden. The largest wooden ship
of modern times turned out not to be really viable, and it was smaller.

My own view on this is that there was a major flood event that
devastated much of the then-known world, but I don't personally believe
it was literally planet-wide. This lead to several legends emerging from
that event, which spread as people migrated.

I do however keep an open mind, but it's one of the reasons I don't
personally believe Genesis was very literal.

https://youtu.be/wL9eo9QaJb4?si=1jItieCE8ycwvuGT

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/02/2024 18:44, Timreason wrote:

> I have just come across this video. Of course, some liberties were
> taken, such as increasing numbers from two of each kind to 500 of each
> kind. But even if we stuck with the biblical 'Two by two', I think we
> can see that they wouldn't all fit, then of course, there's the problem
> of all the food needed.

It is an interesting film, but makes an awful lot of assumptions. For
example, New Scientist a few years ago reported that someone had
discovered that humans went through a "bottle-neck" when the population
was reduced to 27. Not only is that a good deal fewer than the
presenter's 500 but humans do not seem to have suffered irreversible
damage as a result.

However if we take the Bible literally, humans were created perfect and
it is likely that animals were too. Which is why Cain could marry his
sister. That perfection would not be greatly degraded by the time of the
Flood, so the small number of two individuals would not suffer the
genetic disaster he discusses.

Other points could be made about the rest of his film.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[John]

How could Adam and Eve be perfect if they chose to defy God? (ok Eve was
tricked but Adam had no excuse)

At what point did Cain degrade? Hint, he murdered his brother, which in
my opinion is a pretty bad degradation.

Cain didn't marry his sister, but had he done he would have already been
imperfect.

The flood came some 1500 years later, by which time the earth had become
pretty wicked. The decendants of Adam & Eve were no doubt good people,
and indeed Noah caught God's favour, but even so, they had fathered all
these wicked people.

[Madhu]

* John <upp7k5$3tfeg$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 4 Feb 2024 23:46:12 +0000:

> How could Adam and Eve be perfect if they chose to defy God? (ok Eve
> was tricked but Adam had no excuse)

Consider an extra-biblical axiom: that of the angelic fall.

(28:15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast
created, till iniquity was found in thee.

The iniquity found in Adam (through the unlikely story of a forbidden
fruit) is a reflection of the iniquity found in the cherub, the details
of which the bible is obliged for some theological reason to leave out -
as the bible only concerns man and the plan for man, nevertheless there
are hints that this plan plays out as a part of God's bigger plan of
judgement.

the disobedience indicates Adam has taken on the iniquity of the fallen
angels upon his own head, is not necessarily a reflection of the
imperfection of his own creation

> At what point did Cain degrade? Hint, he murdered his brother, which
> in my opinion is a pretty bad degradation.

I've been reading some "only grace" tracts that condemn "repentence and
turning away from sin" as "works" that when engaged in will steal your
salvation by supplementing your trust in Christ as a means of salvation.

In that context (tongue in cheek) Abel would be a chilling reminder of
what happens when you trust in your righteouseness and works.

[Timreason]

On 04/02/2024 20:34, Kendall K. Down wrote:

Yes, you make some good points there. I saw the whole 50 and 500 thing a
deviation away from the biblical account anyway. But as I point out, the
main issue is the problem of all the food needed. I suppose that could
have been provided miraculously, rather like the 'Manna from heaven'.

As for me, I'm tending to go with what I think most likely, rather than
being tied to a very literal interpretation. A local flood event and
subsequent legends seem to me to be more likely.

But as I said, I do have an open mind, since all things are possible
with God.

Tim.

[GB]

On 05/02/2024 08:30, Timreason wrote:

> But as I said, I do have an open mind, since all things are possible
> with God.
>

According to the film, the logistics of building the Ark would have been
extraordinary. They needed 1200 tons of timber, which presumably meant
chopping down twice that. So, Noah would have needed to fell and
transport say 1000 large trees.

Hopefully, he had *a lot* of help!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/02/2024 23:46, John wrote:

> How could Adam and Eve be perfect if they chose to defy God? (ok Eve was
> tricked but Adam had no excuse)

You are getting two perfections muddled. Obviously they were imperfect
spiritually (or at least, capable of imperfection), but they were
perfect physically (or at the very least, far closer to it than we are
today). For example, I don't believe they had any genetic mutations that
might cause disease.

> Cain didn't marry his sister, but had he done he would have already been
> imperfect.

How do you know Cain didn't marry his sister? What other lineage was
there from which he could find a wife? And again, you are not only
confusing spiritual and physical perfection, but you are assuming that
sibling marriage in those early years was contrary to God's plan.

> The flood came some 1500 years later, by which time the earth had become
> pretty wicked. The decendants of Adam & Eve were no doubt good people,
> and indeed Noah caught God's favour, but even so, they had fathered all
> these wicked people.

1650 years to be precise. And again, spiritual v. physical perfection.
The decline in the physical followed the Flood - note the ages of the
pre-Deluge patriarchs and the ages of those alfter the Deluge. Something
was going on to reduce lifespan so drastically.

[Muhammad]

On 04/02/2024 18:44, Timreason wrote:

It is possible the flood only took place in the region Noah was
preaching. Thus, those that rejected him, were damned.

The details of the ship are unknown; I very much doubt the Bible account
of the ship is accurate, other than a narrative from the writers'
imagination, which is to describe a 'massive ship'.

Noah, in Islamic terms, either (depending on how the word is translated)
about 9 generations or 9 undefined periods of time ('9' if memories
serve me right).

The children of Adam and Eve are human, just as their parents. They too,
were set upon by the devil and his minions, to sway them and entrap them
to commit sins, the most heinous of them being the reject God.

On another note:
Idol worship didn't appear overnight, the devil worked on human for
generations.

The stages:

1) after the passing of a holy person, likely a messenger of God. The
devil would encourage people to make a monument of the person, as a
reminder of that holy person, so that it reminds them to do good.
2) after a number of generations, when the meaning of the monument
becomes diluted. The devil encouraged people to use the idol as an
intercessor to God. As medium to ensure prayers have a 'higher' chance
of acceptance.
3) after some generations, when the real meaning of the monument is
forgotten. Then the devil returns to encourage people to directly
worship the idol.
4) after some time, this then leads to an industry, of having one's own
idol God…

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/02/2024 05:15, Madhu wrote:

> I've been reading some "only grace" tracts that condemn "repentence and
> turning away from sin" as "works" that when engaged in will steal your
> salvation by supplementing your trust in Christ as a means of salvation.

What pernicious nonsense. Jesus Himself came preaching "The kingdom of
heaven is at hand; repent and believe the gospel".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/02/2024 08:30, Timreason wrote:

> Yes, you make some good points there. I saw the whole 50 and 500 thing a
> deviation away from the biblical account anyway. But as I point out, the
> main issue is the problem of all the food needed. I suppose that could
> have been provided miraculously, rather like the 'Manna from heaven'.

That would be one solution, but a more likely one - in my opinion - is
that all the animals hibernated. People talk about putting humans into
"suspended animation" during long space voyages, so why can't God do the
same?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/02/2024 18:03, GB wrote:

> According to the film, the logistics of building the Ark would have been
> extraordinary. They needed 1200 tons of timber, which presumably meant
> chopping down twice that. So, Noah would have needed to fell and
> transport say 1000 large trees.

That is assuming that the ark had the internal scaffolding posited by
the film maker.

It is interesting that the Gilgamesh epic describes the ark as being
round, like an Iraqi "ghufa" or reed and pitch boat (only very much
bigger, of course). We traditionally think of the ark as a ship such as
we have seen, but perhaps it had a completely different shape!

> Hopefully, he had *a lot* of help!

I imagine that all the God-fearers of his day helped him but then died
off. If you look at the genealogy, (without checking) Lamech, Noah's
father died 8 years before the Flood and Methuselah died in the year of
the Flood.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 04/02/2024 23:46, John wrote:
>
>> How could Adam and Eve be perfect if they chose to defy God? (ok Eve
>> was tricked but Adam had no excuse)
>
> You are getting two perfections muddled. Obviously they were imperfect
> spiritually (or at least, capable of imperfection), but they were
> perfect physically (or at the very least, far closer to it than we are
> today). For example, I don't believe they had any genetic mutations that
> might cause disease.

Ah I see, sorry, I was referring to the spiritual aspect

>> Cain didn't marry his sister, but had he done he would have already
>> been imperfect.
>
> How do you know Cain didn't marry his sister? What other lineage was
> there from which he could find a wife? And again, you are not only
> confusing spiritual and physical perfection, but you are assuming that
> sibling marriage in those early years was contrary to God's plan.

No I'm not assuming that, and I agree that it was not deemed to be
forbidden act at that point in history.

but when looking it up last night I made a bit of a discovery, well two
actually. the first one is that Adam had two sons, one of whom was
killed. Then Adam had another son, Seth, and the response from Eve is
telling. "God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel,
for Cain killed him" Now most bibles say son here but checking Strongs
the word ze'ra is used as opposed to ben, which is translated as son
earlier in the text So the ESV, which I quoted above, is correct in
this respect.

Eve's third child was a son, but we already know that Cain had taken a
wife in the land of Nod. My conclusion therefore is that when Cain
moved to Nod, there were already other inhabitants there, and Genesis
only deals with the lineage leading down to Noah, as direct descendants
of Adam.

>> The flood came some 1500 years later, by which time the earth had
>> become pretty wicked. The decendants of Adam & Eve were no doubt good
>> people, and indeed Noah caught God's favour, but even so, they had
>> fathered all these wicked people.
>
> 1650 years to be precise.

Ah, my maths failed me, I counted 1556

And again, spiritual v. physical perfection.
> The decline in the physical followed the Flood - note the ages of the
> pre-Deluge patriarchs and the ages of those alfter the Deluge. Something
> was going on to reduce lifespan so drastically.

Oh? I thought that was a deliberate act of God, drastically cutting the
age of man down to three score years and ten.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/02/2024 23:00, John wrote:

> Eve's third child was a son, but we already know that Cain had taken a
> wife in the land of Nod.  My conclusion therefore is that when Cain
> moved to Nod, there were already other inhabitants there, and Genesis
> only deals with the lineage leading down to Noah, as direct descendants
> of Adam.

Adam and Eve did not have the advantage of the Pill, they were (in some
sense) young and we presume they were fertile because they were told to
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth".

How old were Cain and Abel when the one murdered the other? Well, as you
have already pointed out they were old enough that Cain was married. Are
you going to seriously claim that in all that time Adam and Eve only had
two children and by mischance both were boys?

Why do you say that Cain "took a wife in the land of Nod"? The Bible
merely says that Cain lived in Nod and that he knew his wife. It says
nothing about the birthplace of that wife.

> Ah, my maths failed me, I counted 1556

I apologise. You are correct.

> Oh?  I thought that was a deliberate act of God, drastically cutting the
> age of man down to three score years and ten.

God usually works through natural means to achieve His ends (and it is
not clear whether the reference to 120 years in Genesis 6:3 is to the
length of a human life or the period Noah had in which to build the ark).

Various mechanisms have been proposed by which man's life could be
shortened: eating meat instead of vegetables; changes in planetary
conditions which increased the amount of solar radiation affecting the
earth; merely the stress of coping with a world that had been destroyed;
the release of pathogens from all the dead bodies of men and animals;
and so on.

[GB]

On 05/02/2024 20:53, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 05/02/2024 18:03, GB wrote:
>
>> According to the film, the logistics of building the Ark would have
>> been extraordinary. They needed 1200 tons of timber, which presumably
>> meant chopping down twice that. So, Noah would have needed to fell and
>> transport say 1000 large trees.
>
> That is assuming that the ark had the internal scaffolding posited by
> the film maker.
>
> It is interesting that the Gilgamesh epic describes the ark as being
> round, like an Iraqi "ghufa" or reed and pitch boat (only very much
> bigger, of course). We traditionally think of the ark as a ship such as
> we have seen, but perhaps it had a completely different shape!

Round? Surely, the bible says it was much longer than wide?

As for internal bracing, even steel boats have a lot of bracing. I don't
think that changing the shape would help much, really. I know that reed
boats don't have much bracing, but t they have a very strong hoop around
the top instead?

It is interesting that the replica boats are all sited near to water.
However, the obvious place for Noah to build it would have been where he
had easy access to the necessary wood.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/02/2024 15:22, GB wrote:

> Round? Surely, the bible says it was much longer than wide?

So, it was oval? (Obviously I don't take Gilgamesh as inspired, but in
view of the similarities between him and the Bible story, the
description of his ark is interesting.)

> As for internal bracing, even steel boats have a lot of bracing. I don't
> think that changing the shape would help much, really. I know that reed
> boats don't have much bracing, but t they have a very strong hoop around
> the top instead?

Not that I've ever seen. Mind you, I'll admit that I have not made a
deep study of them, merely noted them floating in the Euphrates and
Tigris as we passed.

If you watched the video you would have seen that the wooden bracing
proposed by the film maker was far in excess of what steel boats
require. I think I am right in stating that a round shape is stronger
than a square or rectangle - a bit like an arch in every direction!

> It is interesting that the replica boats are all sited near to water.
> However, the obvious place for Noah to build it would have been where he
> had easy access to the necessary wood.

Yes, if the Bible story is correct, Noah didn't have to worry about
launching his ark. The water came to him - he didn't need to go to it!

[John]

On 06/02/2024 08:23, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 05/02/2024 23:00, John wrote:
>
>> Eve's third child was a son, but we already know that Cain had taken a
>> wife in the land of Nod.  My conclusion therefore is that when Cain
>> moved to Nod, there were already other inhabitants there, and Genesis
>> only deals with the lineage leading down to Noah, as direct
>> descendants of Adam.
>
> Adam and Eve did not have the advantage of the Pill, they were (in some
> sense) young and we presume they were fertile because they were told to
> "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth".
>
> How old were Cain and Abel when the one murdered the other? Well, as you
> have already pointed out they were old enough that Cain was married. Are
> you going to seriously claim that in all that time Adam and Eve only had
> two children and by mischance both were boys?

Eve's comment makes sense if we assume that, but if they had other
children in between then it doesn't make sense, because she saw Enoch
has a replacement for Abel.

> Why do you say that Cain "took a wife in the land of Nod"? The Bible
> merely says that Cain lived in Nod and that he knew his wife. It says
> nothing about the birthplace of that wife.

That's true, it's an assumption on my part to assume his wife was
already in Nod, but equally it's an assumption on your part to say that
she went with Cain as his sister. I'm taking 4:13 and 15 to back up my
assumption because it sounds like he went alone.

>> Ah, my maths failed me, I counted 1556
>
> I apologise. You are correct.

No worries, just realised it sounds like I was being sarcastic, I
wasn't. You said 1650 and I just accepted that and thought I was wrong.

[John]

On 05/02/2024 20:53, Kendall K. Down wrote:

Close enough, I checked that to see if Lamech should have been on the
ark, thinking he had missed out, but he'd popped his clogs a few years
previously.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/02/2024 13:23, John wrote:

> Eve's comment makes sense if we assume that, but if they had other
> children in between then it doesn't make sense, because she saw Enoch
> has a replacement for Abel.

That's a ridiculous statement. Eve could see Seth as Abel's replacement,
no matter how many other children were in between.

> That's true, it's an assumption on my part to assume his wife was
> already in Nod, but equally it's an assumption on your part to say that
> she went with Cain as his sister.  I'm taking 4:13 and 15 to back up my
> assumption because it sounds like he went alone.

You are making two assumptions: 1) that Cain went alone (and I don't see
how those two verses lead to that conclusion), and 2) that God created
other humans beside Adam and Eve.

> No worries, just realised it sounds like I was being sarcastic

I didn't take it that way at all.

[John]

On 07/02/2024 20:58, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 13:23, John wrote:
>
>> Eve's comment makes sense if we assume that, but if they had other
>> children in between then it doesn't make sense, because she saw Enoch
>> has a replacement for Abel.
>
> That's a ridiculous statement. Eve could see Seth as Abel's replacement,
> no matter how many other children were in between.

How is it? As I previously said, she didn't say another son, she said
another seed (child) (hebrew ze'ra)

>
>> That's true, it's an assumption on my part to assume his wife was
>> already in Nod, but equally it's an assumption on your part to say
>> that she went with Cain as his sister.  I'm taking 4:13 and 15 to back
>> up my assumption because it sounds like he went alone.
>
> You are making two assumptions: 1) that Cain went alone (and I don't see
> how those two verses lead to that conclusion), and 2) that God created
> other humans beside Adam and Eve.

Indeed. The first part we both make opposite assumptions, the second
part can be deemed from the beginning of chapter 5, when it speaks
plurally of man. That may just mean Adam & Eve granted.

But we also know that Cain built a city in Nod. Why would he do that if
there were just him, his wife/sister and Enoch? So yes, I do think
there were other humans around.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/02/2024 22:27, John wrote:

> How is it?  As I previously said, she didn't say another son, she said
> another seed (child) (hebrew ze'ra)

As they didn't have ultrasound in those days, how could she say "son"
until he was born? So she opts for the genderless "seed".

> But we also know that Cain built a city in Nod.  Why would he do that if
> there were just him, his wife/sister and Enoch?  So yes, I do think
> there were other humans around.

Certainly there were other humans around - children of Adam and Eve. And
it is entirely possible that Cain had sympathisers who were only too
happy to join him in Nod and live in defiance against God.

If you look at Genesis 5, Seth was born when Adam was 130. If he was
viewed as a replacement for Abel, that implies that Abel's death took
place only 9 months previously. How many children did Adam and Eve have
in 128/9 years? How many grandchildren had arrived by then? Depending on
the age of marriage and first children, there might even have been
great-grandchildren!

Ok, so the total population was well under a thousand, but what
percentage of them were faithful to God and what percentage only too
glad to go and join Cain in his village (city)?

[John]

On 08/02/2024 06:32, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 22:27, John wrote:
>
>> How is it?  As I previously said, she didn't say another son, she said
>> another seed (child) (hebrew ze'ra)
>
> As they didn't have ultrasound in those days, how could she say "son"
> until he was born? So she opts for the genderless "seed".

She named him Seth after he was born, and said God has given me another
seed, so this is post-birth, not pre-birh

>> But we also know that Cain built a city in Nod.  Why would he do that
>> if there were just him, his wife/sister and Enoch?  So yes, I do think
>> there were other humans around.
>
> Certainly there were other humans around - children of Adam and Eve. And
> it is entirely possible that Cain had sympathisers who were only too
> happy to join him in Nod and live in defiance against God.

Both of us are speculating. Your "problem" is in taking a literal
approach to Genesis. My own view is that it's a truncated assessment of
early human life. Now it is possible that when Moses(?) wrote this down
it was a direct dictation from God, and if that's the case then it's
reasonable to deduct that only Adam and Eve's offspring were around at
that time.

> If you look at Genesis 5, Seth was born when Adam was 130. If he was
> viewed as a replacement for Abel, that implies that Abel's death took

> place only 9 months previously....

Not necessarily, and we have absolutely no idea how old Adam & Eve were
when Cain and Abel were born. There's no mention of any other children
up to when Abel was killed but we assume they were both young men,
although that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

> Ok, so the total population was well under a thousand, but what
> percentage of them were faithful to God and what percentage only too
> glad to go and join Cain in his village (city)?

I would have said around 500 (assuming Cain was 30) but lets go with
1000. There's nothing in the bible to say the majority were evil but
say there were 400 so maybe 100 families. Hardly enough for a village,
let alone a city!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/02/2024 15:59, John wrote:

> She named him Seth after he was born, and said God has given me another
> seed, so this is post-birth, not pre-birh

Ok. Another suggestion I have come across is that it is a reference to
the promise of Gen 3:15 "the seed of the woman". Apparently when Cain
was born, Eve declared, "I have gotten a man, the Lord". The word "from"
is not in the original Hebrew or the oldest Hebrew or something.

Then, when Cain turns out such a disappointment, her hope is that his
replacement - Seth - will be the promised "seed".

> Both of us are speculating.

Indeed, but my speculations are in accord with Genesis.

> Your "problem" is in taking a literal approach to Genesis.

I don't view that as a problem.

> I would have said around 500 (assuming Cain was 30)

You may well be right, though if there were a plethora of twins in those
early days ...

Why do you assume Cain was 30 instead of 130?

The problem is that we do not know what is meant by "Adam was 130 years
old". Does that mean that he had been created 130 years previously? Or
did he only start counting once death was on the cards? Did they start
having sex as soon as they were expelled or was there a substantial
interval? (Don't forget that some regard the "apple" as Adam and Eve
discovering sex!)

> There's nothing in the bible to say the majority were evil but
> say there were 400 so maybe 100 families. Hardly enough for a village,
> let alone a city!

Unfortunately, "broad is the path and wide the way that leadeth to
destruction. If, in those early days, the majority were not evil, I
reckon it was much closer to 50/50 than you suggest.

God bless,
Kendall K Down

[John]

On 08/02/2024 21:01, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 15:59, John wrote:
>
>> She named him Seth after he was born, and said God has given me
>> another seed, so this is post-birth, not pre-birh
>
> Ok. Another suggestion I have come across is that it is a reference to
> the promise of Gen 3:15 "the seed of the woman". Apparently when Cain
> was born, Eve declared, "I have gotten a man, the Lord". The word "from"
> is not in the original Hebrew or the oldest Hebrew or something.
>
> Then, when Cain turns out such a disappointment, her hope is that his
> replacement - Seth - will be the promised "seed".
>
>> Both of us are speculating.
>
> Indeed, but my speculations are in accord with Genesis.
>
>> Your "problem" is in taking a literal approach to Genesis.
>
> I don't view that as a problem.
>
>> I would have said around 500 (assuming Cain was 30)
>
> You may well be right, though if there were a plethora of twins in those
> early days ...
>
> Why do you assume Cain was 30 instead of 130?

Because he was toiling the land, which could be anything from 18-60 but
going by the fact that Cain was jealous of Abel because his offer was
more favourable, so I'm guessing anything between 18-30. He may well
have been 130 though.

> The problem is that we do not know what is meant by "Adam was 130 years
> old". Does that mean that he had been created 130 years previously? Or
> did he only start counting once death was on the cards? Did they start
> having sex as soon as they were expelled or was there a substantial
> interval? (Don't forget that some regard the "apple" as Adam and Eve
> discovering sex!)

My own theory is that these were clans rather than actual people, but I
don't take Genesis literally. As you do I respect your view is different.

I'm guessing that Adam and Eve would have had sex more or less straight
away, or certainly after eating the fruit, if he received carnal
thoughts after that.

>> There's nothing in the bible to say the majority were evil but say
>> there were 400 so maybe 100 families. Hardly enough for a village, let
>> alone a city!
>
> Unfortunately, "broad is the path and wide the way that leadeth to
> destruction. If, in those early days, the majority were not evil, I
> reckon it was much closer to 50/50 than you suggest.

Flipping heck, the fall must have worked fast then! And, if you believe
c500 out of your 1000 were evil, it doesn't say much for the original
plan for mankind.

Just an aside here, but if Adam and Eve hadn't partaken of the fruit,
would they have just been those two or would they ahve still populated,
but with a perfect world?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/02/2024 00:12, John wrote:

>> Why do you assume Cain was 30 instead of 130?

> Because he was toiling the land

Why would that limit his age? Given that his father lived to 930, if
Cain was 130 it would mean that he was still in his early teens
(compared to us today).

> I'm guessing that Adam and Eve would have had sex more or less straight
> away, or certainly after eating the fruit, if he received carnal
> thoughts after that.

We don't even know the interval between Adam being created and Adam
sinning. If it was years, then it is surprising that they didn't have
children before Cain and Abel, but it may have been only months, which
would explain why Eve was so easily deceived.

> Flipping heck, the fall must have worked fast then! And, if you believe
> c500 out of your 1000 were evil, it doesn't say much for the original
> plan for mankind.

I've no idea what the proportion was and agree that a minority of
sinners is, perhaps, more likely, at least in those early years. However
a higher figure is not impossible.

For example: one reason for Cain's behaviour may have been his parents'
inexperience as parents. Add in the idea that his mother may have
thought him the promised "Seed", and I'll bet he was spoiled rotten.
Hence his rebellious response to any rules or controls.

> Just an aside here, but if Adam and Eve hadn't partaken of the fruit,
> would they have just been those two or would they ahve still populated,
> but with a perfect world?

I believe so - and I think God would have delayed the birth of children
until they were both mature enough to cope. Plus God would have given
child-rearing advice during those walks in the Garden in the cool of the
evening.

[Timreason]

On 10/02/2024 00:12, John wrote:

>

> My own theory is that these were clans rather than actual people, but I
> don't take Genesis literally.  As you do I respect your view is different.
>

For me, the great ages are hard to believe. (Yes, I know what the Bible
says about later restricting age).

I have a theory (which is, I admit, rather a weak one) that early
record-keepers recorded ages in a different way. Lunar months are
generally easier to count than years. So we could try counting them as
months - but that doesn't work, with some producing offspring when only
about 4 or 5 years old!.

So, I postulate that it is possible they didn't count ages from birth,
but from when they reached reproductive age (maybe, onset of
menstruation for a girl, or first emission of semen for a boy).

So we might approximate a conversion to years by dividing the number
given by about 13, and then adding on, say, 12. So try (n/13) + 12.

That would give an age for Methuselah of about 86 and a half. Not
incredible.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/02/2024 08:34, Timreason wrote:

> For me, the great ages are hard to believe. (Yes, I know what the Bible
> says about later restricting age).

But the idea of great longevity before the Flood is supported by the
Sumerian king lists, even though the ages given in them are totally
unbelievable (mainly because they are a) huge, and b) very round numbers).

> I have a theory (which is, I admit, rather a weak one) that early
> record-keepers recorded ages in a different way. Lunar months are
> generally easier to count than years. So we could try counting them as
> months - but that doesn't work, with some producing offspring when only
> about 4 or 5 years old!.

You are not the first to come up with that idea, but I have not found
any proposal that is a) believable and b) avoids the sort of problem you
describe.

[Timreason]

Did you read the rest of my post?

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/02/2024 20:53, Timreason wrote:

> Did you read the rest of my post?

Of course. What did you particularly wish to draw to my attention?

[John]

On 10/02/2024 07:34, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 00:12, John wrote:
>
>>> Why do you assume Cain was 30 instead of 130?
>
>> Because he was toiling the land
>
> Why would that limit his age? Given that his father lived to 930, if
> Cain was 130 it would mean that he was still in his early teens
> (compared to us today).

Probably still in his nappies at the age of 30 then :-)

>> I'm guessing that Adam and Eve would have had sex more or less
>> straight away, or certainly after eating the fruit, if he received
>> carnal thoughts after that.
>
> We don't even know the interval between Adam being created and Adam
> sinning. If it was years, then it is surprising that they didn't have
> children before Cain and Abel, but it may have been only months, which
> would explain why Eve was so easily deceived.

If I was to take a literal view, I would say days but we have no way of
knowing

>> Flipping heck, the fall must have worked fast then! And, if you
>> believe c500 out of your 1000 were evil, it doesn't say much for the
>> original plan for mankind.
>
> I've no idea what the proportion was and agree that a minority of
> sinners is, perhaps, more likely, at least in those early years. However
> a higher figure is not impossible.

I'd say the quantity of evil people in the world to be well under 50% today.

[John]

On 10/02/2024 08:34, Timreason wrote:

> On 10/02/2024 00:12, John wrote:
>
>>
>> My own theory is that these were clans rather than actual people, but
>> I don't take Genesis literally.  As you do I respect your view is
>> different.
>>
>
> For me, the great ages are hard to believe. (Yes, I know what the Bible
> says about later restricting age).

In my opinion, they relate to clans rather than people. For this to be
people living the exact age written dowm, then the whole geneswis story
would have had to have been dictated.

Which would be strange as the New Testament, far more important to
Christians than the OT, wasn't dictated I don't deny it was inspired but
that gives us the problem that all denomninations have differing views.

[Timreason]

On 11/02/2024 19:49, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 20:53, Timreason wrote:
>
>> Did you read the rest of my post?
>
> Of course. What did you particularly wish to draw to my attention?
>
> God bless,

Merely that I had addressed the issue of people having kids when they
were too young, if months were used.

I admit it's probably a rather weak argument, but not (IMO) as
far-fetched as it might seem. That is, if it is assumed that lives were
on average no longer than they are today.

Infant mortality rates would have been high, so it is at least credible
that they might only have started counting ages once they were
considered 'grown up', that is, able to reproduce. Even today, we
consider youngsters as 'minors', sort-of not full citizens.

Counting age from reproduction age, rather than birth, is at least feasible.

Tim.

[Timreason]

On 11/02/2024 21:53, John wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 08:34, Timreason wrote:
>> On 10/02/2024 00:12, John wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My own theory is that these were clans rather than actual people, but
>>> I don't take Genesis literally.  As you do I respect your view is
>>> different.
>>>
>>
>> For me, the great ages are hard to believe. (Yes, I know what the
>> Bible says about later restricting age).
>
> In my opinion, they relate to clans rather than people.

Yes, again I think that is feasible.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/02/2024 08:17, Timreason wrote:

> I admit it's probably a rather weak argument, but not (IMO) as
> far-fetched as it might seem. That is, if it is assumed that lives were
> on average no longer than they are today.

Why would one make that assumption - unless he believed Darwin rather
than God?

> Infant mortality rates would have been high

Why do you think that? A perfect world, people far nearer to physical
perfection than we are today, why would their babies die?

Your trouble is that you will not accept the Bible story on its own
terms but try to make a mix of evolution and some fantasy
interpretations of Scripture.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/02/2024 21:48, John wrote:

> Probably still in his nappies at the age of 30 then :-)

He he. People talk about their 15-year old dog being "over a hundred if
he were human"; same principle.

> I'd say the quantity of evil people in the world to be well under 50%
> today.

Depends on your definition of "evil". Just look at the figures for
people who attend church today for a different take.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/02/2024 21:53, John wrote:

> In my opinion, they relate to clans rather than people. For this to be
> people living the exact age written dowm, then the whole geneswis story
> would have had to have been dictated.

It is interesting that both the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, give
differing ages for most of the antediluvian patriarchs. I recently
discussed the year of the Flood with someone here. It was 1656 years
after Creation according to the Masoretic text, but 1307 years according
to the Samaritan and 2242 according to the LXX.

This is one reason why I cannot go along with those who insist that
earth is 6,000 years old. In the first place, if you take the Masoretic
figures, Creation took place in the year 3905 BC, so nearly a hundred
years short of the 4,000 postulated by the 6,000 year fanatics. In the
second place you have the differing figures in the source documents.

I believe that the Bible and the Sumerian king lists both point to the
fact that men pre-Flood lived far longer than people do today. I think
it likely that the Masoretic text is in the right ball park in the ages
it gives, but I would hesitate to stake my life on Adam being exactly
930 when he died.

[Timreason]

I would move from a 'legendary' or 'mythological' interpretation if
strong scientific evidence can be found indicating that humans once had
a life-span around ten times what it is now.

Tim.

[John]

Evil for me means wickedness. By all accounts before Noah set sail the
whole world was wicked and God sought to start again as it were.

The community of Sodom and surrounding villages lived a sordid life of
debauchery by all accounts so I would attribute that as wickedness in
God's eyes.

Simply not going to church does not count as evil in my opinion. I set a
higher benchmark to the term evil, and is reserved for such as Fred West
or John Christie, to pick a couple of random evil people.

A drug dealer and organised criminals would also be on the list, but
someone trying to live a decent life, whether Christian or not, isn't in
my opinion evil.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/02/2024 12:36, John wrote:

> A drug dealer and organised criminals would also be on the list, but
> someone trying to live a decent life, whether Christian or not, isn't in
> my opinion evil.

Even if they were following the practices of Sodom?

Quite apart from church-going, someone trying to live a decent life
would be married (not promiscuous) and faithful to the marriage partner.
Would you say that marriage and faithfulness are on the increase?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/02/2024 09:35, Timreason wrote:

> I would move from a 'legendary' or 'mythological' interpretation if
> strong scientific evidence can be found indicating that humans once had
> a life-span around ten times what it is now.

And what form do you propose this "strong scientific evidence" should
take? Or are you just asking for the impossible as an excuse for disbelief?

[Timreason]

Asking for the impossible because I find I can't believe the impossible!

I suppose it could be archeological evidence of some kind, from some
other sources.

Tim.

[John]

On 14/02/2024 07:21, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 12:36, John wrote:
>
>> A drug dealer and organised criminals would also be on the list, but
>> someone trying to live a decent life, whether Christian or not, isn't
>> in my opinion evil.
>
> Even if they were following the practices of Sodom?

I believe I did mention Sodom and the surrounding villages. If they were
forced upon people then yes, that would be evil. If all acts were
consensual and they weren't Christian then no, I wouldn't describe them
as evil.

> Quite apart from church-going, someone trying to live a decent life
> would be married (not promiscuous) and faithful to the marriage partner.
> Would you say that marriage and faithfulness are on the increase?

Society changes, and so does morality, back in the 50's and to a certain
extent the 70's, it was frowned upon to live together but nowadays it's
considered unusual if a couple doesn't live together. Faithfulness I
agree, unless there are extenuating circumstances (and you may say even
that isn't an excuse) but does that make them evil?

Obviously Christians have a different moral code, and would hopefully
adhere to that code.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/02/2024 15:58, John wrote:

> I believe I did mention Sodom and the surrounding villages. If they were
> forced upon people then yes, that would be evil. If all acts were
> consensual and they weren't Christian then no, I wouldn't describe them
> as evil.

You are in for a surprise when the ultimate judge renders His verdict.

> Society changes, and so does morality, back in the 50's and to a certain
> extent the 70's, it was frowned upon to live together but nowadays it's
> considered unusual if a couple doesn't live together.  Faithfulness I
> agree, unless there are extenuating circumstances (and you may say even
> that isn't an excuse) but does that make them evil?

Yes. Ask the jilted party.

> Obviously Christians have a different moral code, and would hopefully
> adhere to that code.

Hopefully.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/02/2024 08:04, Timreason wrote:

> Asking for the impossible because I find I can't believe the impossible!

What is impossible about people living for a long time? Even today you
find reports in the papers about some new scientific break-through that
will enable people to live far in excess of the "three-score and ten".
They haven't eventuated yet, but the fact that people are talking about
it shows that it isn't "impossible".

> I suppose it could be archeological evidence of some kind, from some
> other sources.

You mean, like the Sumerian King List?

[John]

On 14/02/2024 19:51, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 14/02/2024 15:58, John wrote:
>
>> I believe I did mention Sodom and the surrounding villages. If they
>> were forced upon people then yes, that would be evil. If all acts were
>> consensual and they weren't Christian then no, I wouldn't describe
>> them as evil.
>
> You are in for a surprise when the ultimate judge renders His verdict.

So basically anyone not Christian is evil?

>> Society changes, and so does morality, back in the 50's and to a
>> certain extent the 70's, it was frowned upon to live together but
>> nowadays it's considered unusual if a couple doesn't live together.
>> Faithfulness I agree, unless there are extenuating circumstances (and
>> you may say even that isn't an excuse) but does that make them evil?
>
> Yes. Ask the jilted party.

If someone has an affair, it means there is something wrong in the
marriage, so the partner is not entirely innocent. Someone I know lived
with a woman and had a child, and they got married when the child was
very young, in less than a week she kicked him out and that was the end
of the marriage. He struck up a relationship with another woman and they
lived together, and married after the first two children (I think) They
have now been married for nearly 45 years. Does that make him evil
because (technically) it was an extra marital affair until the divorce
came through?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/02/2024 22:51, John wrote:

> So basically anyone not Christian is evil?

No, nor even every homosexual is evil, but when someone actively rejects
Christianity or chooses to be homosexual knowing what God says about it,
they are in serious trouble (in my opinion).

> If someone has an affair, it means there is something wrong in the
> marriage, so the partner is not entirely innocent.

That is often the case, but by no means always.

> Someone I know lived
> with a woman and had a child, and they got married when the child was
> very young, in less than a week she kicked him out and that was the end
> of the marriage. He struck up a relationship with another woman and they
> lived together, and married after the first two children (I think) They
> have now been married for nearly 45 years.  Does that make him evil
> because (technically) it was an extra marital affair until the divorce
> came through?

All such cases I am content to leave to the One Who knows all.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[John]

On 16/02/2024 19:32, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 15/02/2024 22:51, John wrote:
>
>> So basically anyone not Christian is evil?
>
> No, nor even every homosexual is evil, but when someone actively rejects
> Christianity or chooses to be homosexual knowing what God says about it,
> they are in serious trouble (in my opinion).

Interesting, if you actively reject Christianity then no doubt you will
end up outside gnashing your teeth. As regards people sinning (I
assume you mean those who aren't Christians?) if they sin knowing it's
wrong (conviction?) is that not the same as rejecting Christianity, or
does it take more than that?

If a sinner hears a Christian spouting off about x sin being wrong but
thinks rubbish and continues to do x with no further thought probably
not the same.

>> If someone has an affair, it means there is something wrong in the
>> marriage, so the partner is not entirely innocent.
>
> That is often the case, but by no means always.

That's true, thanks for the correction.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 17/02/2024 11:29, John wrote:

> Interesting, if you actively reject Christianity then no doubt you will
> end up outside gnashing your teeth.   As regards people sinning (I
> assume you mean those who aren't Christians?) if they sin knowing it's
> wrong (conviction?) is that not the same as rejecting Christianity, or
> does it take more than that?

No, anyone who deliberately sins and clings to his sin, is in deep trouble.

> If a sinner hears a Christian spouting off about x sin being wrong but
> thinks rubbish and continues to do x with no further thought probably
> not the same.

Fortunately I am not the judge. I am sure that God is able to take every
motive into account in the judgement.