Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor 86 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hillary_step

  Narkissos,

  If the Bible writer was using two different systems of reckoning in the same chapter in reference to Asa's reign then he either wanted to lose his readers or he had an awfully short memory. For he just got done telling us about a war which he said took place in Asa's "15th year." Why would he then only a few verses later say that "there was no war until Asa's 35th year"?

  Exactly, and this is what I alluded to in my "list". The only way that such discrepancies can be rationalized while adhering to a position that the Bible is the "unimpeachable word of God", is manipulating the facts to suit ones conclusions. The text, as you have pointed out is quite clear.

  Chronicles has Baasha fighting battles ten years after I Kings noted his death!

  My premise is that the Bible not reliable when it comes to matters of history, science or chronology. I am not suggesting that it is always innacurate over such matters, but I am suggesting that it is incorrect often enough to question is validity as anything other than a book of "faith". It has to be noted though, that even over matters of faith discrepancies exist.

  HS
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....I am reminded of the fact that in many fields of discipline, it is possible to come up with an explanation that is "more ingenious than correct." In other words, an explanation may account for all the evidence, or claim to do so, but which itself is implausible or less plausible than other explanations motivated by an impartial consideration of the evidence. This can be seen, for example, in cases where new data enters the picture which seems to contradict the prevailing theory, and the data is somehow shoehorned into the old paradigm in a way that technically works, but which just isn't very parsimonious and likely to be true; it isn't the kind of explanation that a person would come up with evaluating the evidence without the initial premise in mind.

  moshe...I think you are cutting and pasting from this webpage:

  http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenMarsEarthWars/PattenMEW09.htm

  That is a serious piece of crackpottery you found there. Aside from the pseudoscientic Velikovsky-style theory of major planetary catastrophes in historical times, it gets many facts about ancient calendars wrong. There is no evidence that "all calendars change in 701 BC", or that King Hezekiah "reorganized his Jewish calendar by adding a month each Jewish leap year". The site goes on to claim that the intercalary month of Vedar was originally annual and 5 days in length. In other words, the author is attributing a change in calendars in Hezekiah's reign and characterizing the new calendar as similar to the Egyptian calendar, which had a five-day intercalation at the end of each year. No evidence is cited for this at all, as it doesn't exist. And the Egyptian civil calendar had the five-day intercalation long before 701 BC, and the 360-day schematic calendar of the Sumerians and Babylonians and the Old and Middle Babylonian lunar calendar (of the third and second centuries BC) were intercalated as well (cf. the intercalation scheme in the MUL.APIN, dating to around 1000 BC). The author also finds remarkable the fact that the ancient calendars started in March-April or September-October, but of course that was when either of the equinoxes occurred, and they were used to keep the lunar monthly calendar in time with the seasons.

  In the Hebrew calendar, March 20 or Nisan 13 always was a full moon ... and Friday the 13th - of the month of Nisan. If the Moon always was full on Nisan l3, and the ancient Hebrews had twelve 30-day months, Mars had to be in some kind of orbital resonance with the Earth. It had to be.

  LOL, this is pretty funny because it didn't "have to be". The annual lunisolar calendar always started with a particular phase of the moon (with intercalation picking up the slack to keep the calendar in time with the seasons), so there is no implication at all that the months were always 30 days in length. That would very quickly make the months out of tune with the phases of the moon. The author seems to be unaware that the Hebrews had two different calendars, the lunisolar calendar based on the phases of the moon and the solar schematic calendar that had 12 months in a year with 360 days between them. This latter calendar was non-lunar and which did not reckon the length of the year as 360 days in length. Rather, it posited the year as consisting of 364 days, with the two equinoxes and solstices intervening between the seasons (and thus not reckoned in the months themselves). This calendar was preferred by some because it was sabbatical, i.e. 364 days evenly yields 52 weeks, and the four seasons consist of one "time of the season" + three (30-day) months. That meant that the sabbath would always fall on the same calendar day every year. This system co-existed with the lunisolar calendar and the two were synchronized with each other in calendrical texts.
• 

  a Christian

  HS, You wrote: I have just listed a few above, but if you wish me to continue I am certainly willing and able. ;) Your wink tells me that you feel that such a marathon discussion would be about as useful as I do. Several books have been written answering questions about "Bible Difficulties." I have a couple of them. Much is also published on the Web answering such questions. You can probably find answers from Bible believers to all the questions you just asked as well as most others commonly asked by Bible critics by doing a Google search. You told me earlier that you have some interest in the subject of Bible chronology and even own some books on the subject matter. I believe properly understanding the "390" and "40" year periods of time referenced in Ezekiel chapter 4 is essential if we are to properly understand the Bible's chronological record of the Hebrew monarchs. My understanding of Ezekiel 4 is a very important part of my study. As of yet I have not discussed it in detail with anyone. If you would be willing to read it, a couple of pages, and offer me your feedback I would appreciate it. It may be less time consuming for us to have such a discussion by private E-mail. But however you would prefer to do so would be fine with me. Thanks. Mike
• 

  hillary_step

  A Christian,

  Your wink tells me that you feel that such a marathon discussion would be about as useful as I do. Several books have been written answering questions about "Bible Difficulties." I have a couple of them. Much is also published on the Web answering such questions. You can probably find answers from Bible believers to all the questions you just asked as well as most others commonly asked by Bible critics by doing a Google search.

  Yes, I have over the years read defences by Christian apologists over many of these issues. I found that the vast majority of rebuttals to the issue of Biblical errancy fall into the scenario which I without much sublety as ever, referred to above as 'manipulation' of the facts to suit a conclusion. It is possible to fit a square peg into a round hole if you hammer hard enough. Leo, always subtle, referred to this methodology in her post above, which I will quote:

  I am reminded of the fact that in many fields of discipline, it is possible to come up with an explanation that is "more ingenious than correct." In other words, an explanation may account for all the evidence, or claim to do so, but which itself is implausible or less plausible than other explanations motivated by an impartial consideration of the evidence. This can be seen, for example, in cases where new data enters the picture which seems to contradict the prevailing theory, and the data is somehow shoehorned into the old paradigm in a way that technically works, but which just isn't very parsimonious and likely to be true; it isn't the kind of explanation that a person would come up with evaluating the evidence without the initial premise in mind.

  As of yet I have not discussed it in detail with anyone. If you would be willing to read it, a couple of pages, and offer me your feedback I would appreciate it. It may be less time consuming for us to have such a discussion by private E-mail.

  Yes, of course I would love, as I am sure would Leo and Narkissos, to read your research. My email address is '[email protected]".

  Cheers - HS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Posting your email address on a public forum HS?

  Thats not smart!

  You should edit that out and PM it, seriously.

  Burn
• 

  hillary_step

  BurnTheShips,

  Posting your email address on a public forum HS? Thats not smart! You should edit that out and PM it, seriously.

  Thank you for your concern.

  I need to tell you that my name is not Hillary Step.

  HS
• 

  belbab

  I have reread this post from beginning to end prodding my sluggish brain to get a handle on it. I view the majority of us are walking in somewhat parallel paths. A-Christian feels he should pound along the straight and narrow concretized road, while others us are walking along in the grass or on the other side of fence. I guess I get hung up in the barb wire fence once and a while.

  In untangling myself, discovering where I stand in regard to “belief in the Bible”, I find that “my faith" can vary from day to day.At times, I feel like figuratively chucking the Book, picking up my marbles and leaving the premises. But I am always drawn back by my own volition.

  To clarify how I view the “book” and its preservation down thru many centuries, I will , from memory, use the discovery of the Nag Hammidi and the Dead Sea scrolls. Someone in the past, who held them as precious, in perilous times took the trouble to seal the scrolls in jars and seal them and hide them and no doubt lost their lives , because they did not return for them.

  Centuries later they were discovered by accident or providence, what does it matter.
  The discoverers handled them badly, fragmenting much, sold them legally or illegally to antiquities dealers and finally they (at least the Dead Sea ones), are put in the hands of
  various religious organizations who start squabblin and hoarding them for years, sifting out derogatory evidence contrary to their religious dogma. They published and doled out the fragments
  piece by piece until someone realized they had revealed much of it, so they clandestinly combined it and put out to the public which provoked the hoarders to release the remainder to be published. .

  I started to read the Nag Hammadi scrolls. I was disappointed, so many broken fragmented texts. The Gospel of Thomas was about the only book that I accepted into my religious understandings.

  Who preserved these scrolls. I could say Providence, if he did, he did not do a very good job of it, they are full of holes. Man? They too did not do a commendable job, fragmenting parts of it so they would get a higher price. .

  Thanks to influence of Elaine Pagels, Leoliea, and others I took a closer at the books and a whole new world opened up for me. I also learned of Irenious, who in his opposition to the Gnostics, revealed much of the writings, thwarting his efforts to discredit them.

  I have deliberately chosen to use these two discoveries as an example of how I view the preservation of the Bible, because orthodox Christianity does not accept them.

  Was it inspired? Who hands held the pens, who supplied the paper and ink? Who distributed them?

  A-Christian you stated in one of your posts: . But we do not need the Bible to know how God desires us to live our lives. For he has put those instructions into all of our hearts and has given us all consciences to constantly remind us of them.

  Who motivates you to post here and spend much time on the research you are doing? Answer it and cherish it for your self in whatever way you wish. Maybe then you will discover who inspired, recorded, preserved and petrified the texts of the Book through the ravages of time and the foibles of man.

  belbab