Posts by a Christian

86

Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor in

there is almost a whisper somewhere on the net that the reason ancient patriach's like noah, enoch, methuselah lived so long is because of a gross miscalculation.

their ages were based upon a calendar that was a lot shorter than ours, hence their years could be twice as long.

i've been looking up for reading material but could only come up with flared-nostril apologetics; fundies insisting on the literalism of the scriptures.. this reasoning about an alternate calendar is conceivably the work of christians who read the bible metaphorically/symbolically, not goat-sacrificing atheists.

a Christian

Leolaia,

Thank you very much for so thoroughly and patiently explaining all of that to me. Though I was aware of some of the benefits which you pointed out of comparing other texts to the MT when translating the Bible. As I acknowledged earlier, "This is not to say that the MT is absolutely free of errors. .... comparing its contents with the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch often proves helpful."

I also acknowledge Nark's point, that as I read the OT, which has been translated from the MT, I should always be aware of the fact that I am reading a translation of only one version of the text, and almost certainly not a perfect one. At the time Hebrew manuscripts were being chosen by the Masorites some ten to fourteen hundred years ago to form the basis of their text they no doubt had many MSS to choose from. And certainly at that time all those MSS contained slight differences when compared to others which were then available to them. So even if the Masorites never made a single error over the years in copying the MSS they selected to form the basis of their text, the possibility remains that their original choice of MSS may not have been the best choice. And of course the possibility exists that no MSS then in existence contained a fully accurate reproduction of the Bible writers' original written words.

However, all that being said, I continue to believe that since the MT represents a very carefully preserved copy of fairly ancient Hebrew MSS it is entirely possible that it does in fact represent a very close facsimile to the OT writers' original documents. This of course cannot be said of any other OT text. That being the case, and since we know that the men who translated the LXX often showed no great respect for the work they were hired by "heathens" to do, when the MT differs from the LXX - with very rare exception - I will assume that the MT is the text to be trusted.

47

THE INCREDIBLE HUCK !

by a Christian in

jw
friends

mike huckabee now leads his closest rival (mitt romney) in the newest iowa poll 39% to 17%.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/74215and in the latest national poll mike leads his closest rival (rudy giuliani) 22% to 18%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_polland among the people who know mike huckabee and hillary clinton both very well, the people of arkansas, huckabee now leads clinton 48% to 42%.

a Christian

Here is the new Rasmussen Report Republican Presidential Poll.

For you Ron Paul Fans, compared to one week ago Ron is up 2 percentage points.

Mike Huckabee is up 1 point.

Rudy is down 4 points.

John McCain is up 4 points. (Could he be about to stage a big comeback? How do Ron Paul's fans explain John McCain's increased popularity since he stands for all that Ron Paul opposes?)

Today's report:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mike Huckabee still on top nationally in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. It’s Mike Huckabee at 23%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mitt Romney at 15%, Fred Thompson at 13% and John McCain at 13% (see recent daily numbers). Ron Paul currently attracts 7% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide.

86

Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor in

there is almost a whisper somewhere on the net that the reason ancient patriach's like noah, enoch, methuselah lived so long is because of a gross miscalculation.

their ages were based upon a calendar that was a lot shorter than ours, hence their years could be twice as long.

i've been looking up for reading material but could only come up with flared-nostril apologetics; fundies insisting on the literalism of the scriptures.. this reasoning about an alternate calendar is conceivably the work of christians who read the bible metaphorically/symbolically, not goat-sacrificing atheists.

a Christian

Hillary,

You wrote: Which only goes to show that in the matter of detail the Bible cannot be relied on to be the final source. This was the thrust of my argument above.

I think it depends on what you call "the Bible."

It is certainly true that in the many years since the Bible's writers completed their work, due to mistakes in its copying and in its translation, some of its 'details' have fallen into dispute. However, I believe this almost never poses a problem for the Bible student who is willing to use one common sense rule. When the meaning or content of a particular passage is in question, always rely on the oldest available manuscript written in the Bible's original language.

In the matter which you raised, Luke's genealogy of Christ and the LXX's Genesis genealogies both apparently containing one more "Cainan" than is mentioned in the MT's Genesis genealogies, following this one common sense rule tells us to reject this second "Cainan" since he does not appear in either the oldest existing Greek copy of Luke or the oldest existing Hebrew copy of Genesis.

This is not to say that the MT is absolutely free of errors. It is said to have been meticulously copied letter by letter as it was passed down to us over the years. However, at times, it appears that a word or two may have been lost. When this seems to possibly be the case, comparing its contents with the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch often proves helpful in recovering that lost word or two.

86

Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor in

there is almost a whisper somewhere on the net that the reason ancient patriach's like noah, enoch, methuselah lived so long is because of a gross miscalculation.

their ages were based upon a calendar that was a lot shorter than ours, hence their years could be twice as long.

i've been looking up for reading material but could only come up with flared-nostril apologetics; fundies insisting on the literalism of the scriptures.. this reasoning about an alternate calendar is conceivably the work of christians who read the bible metaphorically/symbolically, not goat-sacrificing atheists.

a Christian

Leolaia,

Thank you for all of the information. You have convinced me that if indeed this "second Cainan" did not appear in Genesis as it was originally written, he somehow improperly found his way into the LXX translation of Genesis long before Luke was written. And if that is the case then his illegitimate appearance in the LXX is what must have inspired the author of the Book of Jubilees to refer to him. And it then may have been both his mention in the LXX translation of Genesis and his mention in the Book of Jubilees that inspired a copyist of Luke to improperly take it upon himself to "correct" Luke's genealogy of Christ to include this "second Cainan."

86

Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor in

there is almost a whisper somewhere on the net that the reason ancient patriach's like noah, enoch, methuselah lived so long is because of a gross miscalculation.

their ages were based upon a calendar that was a lot shorter than ours, hence their years could be twice as long.

i've been looking up for reading material but could only come up with flared-nostril apologetics; fundies insisting on the literalism of the scriptures.. this reasoning about an alternate calendar is conceivably the work of christians who read the bible metaphorically/symbolically, not goat-sacrificing atheists.

a Christian

Nark, You asked: What is "correct"? By "correct" I refer to the contents of the book of Genesis as originally written. You wrote: Translating from the (pre-)Masoretic Hebrew text is simply the dominant practice of the Western church since Jerome (hebraica veritas), which was carried over through the Reformers into the modern age. You seem to imply that there is no inherent value in translating the Old Testament from the MT as opposed to doing so from the LXX. You seem to say that the only reason translators now prefer to translate the Old Testament into English and other languages while viewing the MT rather than the LXX is due to some sort of tradition. Certainly you must know better. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The LXX is a Greek translation of a Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The MT is not a translation of the Hebrew text. It is a carefully preserved copy of the Hebrew text. When the LXX was translated from Hebrew to Greek some things were certainly "lost in translation." Some things are always "lost in translation." (Many Bible scholars and translators believe the original text of scripture to have been supernaturally inspired by God. But few if any of them believe the translators of the LXX were so inspired.) So why would any translator seeking to clearly understand the original meaning of a Bible writer's words want to read them in any language other than that which he wrote them? Why would any translator want to translate from a translation? If someone who reads only German wants to read "A Tale of Two Cities" by the English author Dickens wouldn't he be better off reading a German translation that had been translated from Dickens' original English into German rather than reading a German translation of a Spanish translation of Dickens' English work? Of course he would. It is for this reason that Bible scholars and Bible translators generally prefer the MT to the LXX.

86

Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor in

there is almost a whisper somewhere on the net that the reason ancient patriach's like noah, enoch, methuselah lived so long is because of a gross miscalculation.

their ages were based upon a calendar that was a lot shorter than ours, hence their years could be twice as long.

i've been looking up for reading material but could only come up with flared-nostril apologetics; fundies insisting on the literalism of the scriptures.. this reasoning about an alternate calendar is conceivably the work of christians who read the bible metaphorically/symbolically, not goat-sacrificing atheists.

a Christian

Jim,

The JW "water canopy" never existed. How could it have? For as you correctly point out, such a thing would have made "calendar calculations nearly impossible."

And Gen. 1:14 tells us that "God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years.' "

86

Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor in

there is almost a whisper somewhere on the net that the reason ancient patriach's like noah, enoch, methuselah lived so long is because of a gross miscalculation.

their ages were based upon a calendar that was a lot shorter than ours, hence their years could be twice as long.

i've been looking up for reading material but could only come up with flared-nostril apologetics; fundies insisting on the literalism of the scriptures.. this reasoning about an alternate calendar is conceivably the work of christians who read the bible metaphorically/symbolically, not goat-sacrificing atheists.

a Christian

Leolaia, You wrote: This convinces me that "Cainan" is likely original to the LXX. You may very well be correct. It may well have been the LXX which influenced some copyists of Luke to improperly take it upon themselves to "correct" what they saw as an accidental omission by Luke. However, since the LXX and the MT disagree on this matter both cannot be correct. Some would have us believe that neither is likely to be correct. However, most Bible translators believe the Genesis genealogies have been well preserved in the MT.

86

Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor in

there is almost a whisper somewhere on the net that the reason ancient patriach's like noah, enoch, methuselah lived so long is because of a gross miscalculation.

their ages were based upon a calendar that was a lot shorter than ours, hence their years could be twice as long.

i've been looking up for reading material but could only come up with flared-nostril apologetics; fundies insisting on the literalism of the scriptures.. this reasoning about an alternate calendar is conceivably the work of christians who read the bible metaphorically/symbolically, not goat-sacrificing atheists.

a Christian

Leolaia,

You wrote: "Cainan" is definitely pre-Christian.

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that "Scholars generally agree the book was written (135-105 B.C.). However there is some dispute as to the time of its writing. ... Dr. Headlam suggests that the author was a fervent opponent of the Christian Faith. (see Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible" "Jubilees, Book of" ) "

86

Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor in

there is almost a whisper somewhere on the net that the reason ancient patriach's like noah, enoch, methuselah lived so long is because of a gross miscalculation.

their ages were based upon a calendar that was a lot shorter than ours, hence their years could be twice as long.

i've been looking up for reading material but could only come up with flared-nostril apologetics; fundies insisting on the literalism of the scriptures.. this reasoning about an alternate calendar is conceivably the work of christians who read the bible metaphorically/symbolically, not goat-sacrificing atheists.

a Christian

86

Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor in

there is almost a whisper somewhere on the net that the reason ancient patriach's like noah, enoch, methuselah lived so long is because of a gross miscalculation.

their ages were based upon a calendar that was a lot shorter than ours, hence their years could be twice as long.

i've been looking up for reading material but could only come up with flared-nostril apologetics; fundies insisting on the literalism of the scriptures.. this reasoning about an alternate calendar is conceivably the work of christians who read the bible metaphorically/symbolically, not goat-sacrificing atheists.

a Christian

Hillary,

So you are saying that because one copyist accidentally repeated a couple words in Luke, which then soon found their way into many copies of the New Testament, this proves that the Genesis genealogies cannot be trusted, even though Church Fathers from as early as the Second Century recognized these couple extra words in Luke as a copyist's error, and even though most scholars today do the same?

By saying this aren't you essentially saying that because one small copyist's error found its way into the New Testament, a mistake which was quickly discovered, this gives us good reason to believe that many large errors found their way into the Old Testament which were never discovered?

I don't follow your logic. The other day I gave a store clerk a twenty dollar bill to pay for an item costing one dollar. She gave me only nine dollars in change instead of nineteen dollars. I quickly pointed out her error. Does this prove that many clerks might have made similar mistakes before when giving me my change, but I never caught their mistakes? Wouldn't it more likely prove that whenever a clerk makes such a mistake I quickly catch it?