Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Any thoughts?Finally had time to watch this. Fascinating. Thanks Perg. The movie clips are hilarious.
Maybe it is an age thing, I'm a 70 year old guy ... but I found the movie clips annoying, and thought they detracted from the presentation.Any thoughts?
I am still wrestling over the issues.
This is interesting. I’ve sent the information contained in your post to one of my Bible professors here at Moody. I respect him immensely and this is a personal interest of his.The following may be of some interest to this topic. I personally haven't had a chance to go through it. Hopefully, I can get to it tomorrow.
"The Case for the Septuagint's Chronology in Genesis 5 & 11"
"ABSTRACT
Many biblical scholars who interpret the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous chronology from
Adam to Abraham claim the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) preserves the original begetting ages for the patriarchs.
The MT’s total for this period is 2008 years. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) presents markedly different chronological
data for each epoch, for a grand total of 2249 years. Calculations derived from the primary manuscripts (MSS) of the
Greek Septuagint (LXX) yield a chronology of 3394 years for this period, 1386 years greater than the MT. The MT is
classically represented by the Ussher chronology, which places creation at 4004 BC and the Flood at 2348 BC. Figures
from the LXX place creation at ca. 5554 BC and the Flood at ca. 3298 BC (Table 1; Appendix, n. 1).
This paper proposes that the LXX preserves (most of) the original numbers in Genesis 5 and 11. Most of the MT’s
chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 does not represent the original text, and is the result of a deliberate and systematic post–
AD 70 corruption. Corroborating external witnesses, internal and external evidence, text critical and LXX studies,
and historical testimonies will be presented, along with arguments rebutting LXX inflation hypotheses. Explanations
for important, accidental scribal errors will be discussed, and a text critical reconstruction of Genesis 5 and 11 will be
proposed."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=icc_proceedings&ved=2ahUKEwjeqeyFytjgAhXGiVQKHZLTDYc4ChAWMAN6BAgDEAE&usg=AOvVaw0uWntnCe-9OmcTeDKmV7Dx
Sounds good. I look forward to hearing their response. Hopefully, by then, I'll have worked through it myself.This is interesting. I’ve sent the information contained in your post to one of my Bible professors here at Moody. I respect him immensely and this is a personal interest of his.
Here is another point of view by Henry B. Smith, Jr., MA, MAR, in Bible and SpadeRegarding the video you posted, here is some information to consider. The book I’ll be quoting, I’ll attach below in its entirety.
Steve,
You wrote:
"..every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more manifestly artificial?"
It seems quite natural for me and exactly what we would expect.
"with the three exceptions of Enoch, Cainan (whose life exceeds that of his father by only 5 years) and Reu (whose age at death is the same as that of his father), every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more manifestly artificial?"
I forgot to give an update, and now I’m working from my dreadful memory. He’s heard of this before and thought it should be loose in our grip. In other words, don’t divide over such a small thing. I believe he looked at this in the overall debate and wanted unity. I haven’t been able to follow up with him about the meat of the article since I don’t have a class with him this semester. That’s a bit of an anticlimactic follow up.Sounds good. I look forward to hearing their response. Hopefully, by then, I'll have worked through it myself.
what would "water damage" look like on them?
Egyptian society was built by the refugees of Atlantis.
Egyptian society was built by the refugees of Atlantis.
Where would you squeeze that Atlantis theory into Genesis 10? It's clear Egypt descended from Ham's son.
The earliest myth about Atlantis is from Egypt. I know some have argued that Atlantis was part of the Minoan civilization (specifically on the island of Thera/Santorini which was destroyed by a volcano) and the story of it's demise came to Egypt shortly afterward. But Egypt already existed in that scenario.
I don't know how I ever missed that. That's brilliant. There is some logistics difficulty in that it's a far distance from Egypt to where Atlantis probably was. Not impossible, though.
But yeah, epistemology in ancient Egypt has some really eerie overtones with modern computer technology (hint: see the "power" button of modern computers and it's shape builds on Egyptian mathematics).
The main problem is that if you are going to posit an Atlantean civilization, you almost have to go with some Old Earth hypothesis. The timeline doesn't work, otherwise.
A great future is forChristians to get into underwater archaeology. We will discover more and more cities under the waves.
No need for that! It looks like you've got it all figured out already.
Tom,
Be civil, please.
I don't know how I ever missed that. That's brilliant. There is some logistics difficulty in that it's a far distance from Egypt to where Atlantis probably was. Not impossible, though.
But yeah, epistemology in ancient Egypt has some really eerie overtones with modern computer technology (hint: see the "power" button of modern computers and it's shape builds on Egyptian mathematics).
The main problem is that if you are going to posit an Atlantean civilization, you almost have to go with some Old Earth hypothesis. The timeline doesn't work, otherwise.
I see no reason to question [Herodotus's rendering of the world].
The historian's duty is to question. Ιστορία is, literally, "inquiry" or "investigation". Nothing ought to be taken for granted; mere speculation (especially speculation without a shred of actual evidence!) will never suffice.
Of course Herodotus should be questioned. And so should any novel ideas of sunken continents. (And those are quite novel indeed.)
Not everything on the internet is true. And sometimes even the History Channel gets it wrong.