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.
johnny cip
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there 12 full moons in a year? Not 13? Hence would it be safe to say that you are essentially taking the lifespan years of the patriarchs to mean months? And if such was the case, the WTS already has a ready defense against such an assumption in the Reasoning book p.94.
To be fair to you, I suppose the WTS' response could also be used to counter any suggestion of an alternate calendar.
INQ
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.
Hi Jim,
Good point there about the water canopy stuffing up astronomical observations/calculations.
On a different but related note, we're familiar with the Christians defense that this water canopy buffered pre-Flood patriarch from harmful rays, thus their longevity, aren't we? However that argument (more like conjecture?) can be demolished quite readily. If a buffer layer of water is such a good guarantee of longevity, shouldn't albino deep-sea creatures be close to immortals? Albino cave-dwelling creatures should also be ageless monsters, but are they?
Without the facade of scientific credibility (hinting that UV rays has been ageing humankind since the Deluge), the apologist's support for superhuman lifespans becomes more vulnerable to criticism. All they are left with is faith.
INQ
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.
Am grateful for the background info to this topic, leolaia!
Perhaps like you say, there is no such alternative calendar. Maybe it is a fleeting musing of someone who noticed that some calendars can be shorter than the 365-days long solar year (e.g. Mayan Tzolkin year has 260-days?). It would make a convenient way of explaining away a 900-year-long lifespan.
A lost calendar that had a 100-days for a year would reduce a 900-year-long lifespan to about a third (200+years). Again, wishful thinking perhaps.
INQ
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.
Hello, BurnTheShips!
your post contains several improbably long numbers in the early post-flood era.
Yes you make a good point. The Noachian Flood does not make a clean drop in lifespans. Peleg's 239 and Terah's 205 are astounding lifespans. While those anomalies do require some sort of explanation (your guess is as good as mine), they are very obviously 3 to 4 times shorter than the lifespans of the earlier patriarchs.
Or put it in the opposite perspective, the pre-Flood lifespans are at least 3 to 4 times the length of the post-Flood anomalies. So surely the pre-Flood lifespans can be categorised apart from the likes of Peleg and Terah. Of course, one has to first assume that there is some credibility to this "lost" calendar hypothesis. For all we know the "lost" calendar (LC) hypothesis is rubbish.
INQ
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.
LENGTHS
OFLIFEOFTHEPATRIARCHSName Genesis LengthofLife
Adam 5:5 930
Seth 5:8 912
Enosh 5:11 905
Enoch 5:23 365 - he wasn't supposed to have died of old age, was he?
Methuselah 5:27 969
Lamech 5:31 777
Noah 9:29 950
Shem 11:10,11 600
___FLOOD________________
Peleg 11:18,19 239
Nahor 11:24,25 148
Terah 11:32 205
Abraham 25:7 175
Isaac 35:28 180
Jacob 47:28 147
taken from "Insight from Scriptures" Vol 2, p. 252
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.
btt
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.
I believe this topic is considered in this week's ministry school; one of the talks
"Reasoning from Scriptures" p. 94
INQ
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.
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. Has anyone else read/heard anything like this? 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. I am very interested in considering their line of thought if only i could find it amidst the clutter. Help, anyone?
INQ
does the term "bigotry" apply only to religious people or can a person be a bigot when they hate religion or religious people?.
the term bigot means to be willingly ignorant or intolerant of another person's beliefs or opinions.
bigotry is an accusation, which is often used by liberal and marxist types to condemn those people who are not of the same "tolerant" or "open minded" attitude as themselves.. .
Wouldn't that depend on whether "everyone in religion" behaves that way, if such a consensus is possible?
it is self evident that the term bigot in a sense, can not actually exist in a free society or open debate because of it's self-destructive, self-imploding and hypocritical nature
By that same token, "hypocrisy" cannot exist in any debate. For who can rightfully accuse another without being a little guilty of that attitude themselves. But we know that hypocrisy DOES EXIST. When a person paints liberally-inclined people and Marxists with the same brush and THEN lectures on about "bigotry", I'd call that hypocrisy.
To correct the stereotype here, let's clarify that liberals champion the freedom of individual rights (even religious!). Marxists believe in the good of the (societal) whole, where it invests the supreme rights in the state and NOT IN INDIVIDUALS. How these two opposing groups should somehow co-operate to call religious people "bigots", is something I cannot fathom.
INQ
i've been reading johannes greber's "communication with the spirit world" - a fascinating book indeed.
how much truth there is in his encounters with the.
spirit realm, i don't know.. .
Scientists of today call the power current in man the ‘odic force’.
Don't you mean scientists in the late 18th, 19th and early 20th Century? I would very much like to know which respectable "scientists of today" has so boldly thrown in his/her personal credibility with this "odic force"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Reichenbach
INQ
