Adam to Jesus 4000 years?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wil said:
Adam begat, age plus age when Abel begat..Abraham begat + Joseph begat...yadda yadda...tis addition this plus that equals...and a whole lot of incest, rape and deceipt along the way....If it was made into a movie literally...we'd never let our kids watch it.
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing what and who God can use to further His glory? The bible is rift with imperfect people rising to the occasion, under the guidance of God.

Like Jesus said, it's not the righteous that need saving...;)

v/r

Joshua
 
Quahom1 said:
I bet if suddenly there was a loss of say 5 billion humans on earth, within a few generations, the life span of man would increase three fold, and the ability to have children would also advance three fold...
Click to expand...
Now that is something to ponder...why would you think that?
Quahom1 said:
Apparently this is still the seventh day for God, and He is resting...:eek: :D
Click to expand...
And there is something I resonate with...

Much more than the impending discussion surrounding who begat Cain's kids to make the lineage add up to 4k...
Q said:
Isn't it amazing what and who God can use to further His glory? The bible is rift with imperfect people rising to the occasion, under the guidance of God.
Click to expand...
Truly
 
Quahom1 said:
In the beginning, man lived for nearly a millenia.
Click to expand...

Hi Joshua,

Can you provide sources of evidence for this; it's rather surprising to me. I thought I'd better suggest an alternative and this is what I found:

The following information is derived from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961, as well as other sources:

Homos by Era
Average Lifespan
(years)
Comment​

Neanderthal

20​

Homo neanderthalensis may actually be different species from modern humans but is still in any case a member of the genus Homo.
Upper Paleolithic

33​

33 at birth; upon reaching age 15: 54
Neolithic

20​


Bronze Age

18​


Classical Greece

28​


Classical Rome

28​


Medieval Britain

33​


End of 19th Century Western Europe

37​


Current world average

66​


Present day "non-civilized"
native groups

34​

At birth: 34 At age 15: 54 At age 50: 67

These represent the life expectancies of the population as a whole.


s.​
 
Snoop, while I look forward to Q's response I'll remind you that you are playing with averages, and the bible is discussing those with extreme longevity. (they are the ones that make it into the stories). Just like folks like George Washington and Ben Franklin, while they weren't the oldest living folks of thier century, they beat the piss out of the averages.

I don't believe a century has gone by where we haven't had records of those living over 100 years. (despite the averages which are continually beat down by wars, famine, epidemics and women/childbirth) Consequently improvement/decrease in these factors is what is causing our steady increase towards that 120 potential.
 
Hi Wil,

I don’t want to be “talking behind Q’s back” so to speak but I think I would simply say that I am aware of the meaning of a statistical average and how it is derived from a population; and the fact that the great majority of a population actually live a shorter or a longer lifespan than this statistical point in the distribution. But Q/Joshua referred to “man lived for nearly a millennia” and I would think it entirely reasonable of somebody to provide the figures that I have in response; it is not denying that people in any era lived shorter or longer than these averages. His phrase to me did not seem to be making reference to isolated, freakish individuals but man “in general”. And man “in general” lives/lived on “average” the figures given. His reference to DNA switches also suggests man in general rather than specific individuals.

s.
 
Snoopy said:
Hi Joshua,

Can you provide sources of evidence for this; it's rather surprising to me. I thought I'd better suggest an alternative and this is what I found:

The following information is derived from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961, as well as other sources:
Click to expand...

Why, I took it right from the Bible Snoop. Average life span was 900 plus years, then after the flood, the life span was shortened to 120 years, then again to three score and 10 (70 years). The last was as of 1400 BCE.

According to scripture, Noah didn't begin constructing the Ark until he was 600 years old.

Now unless you want to say the bible is suspect, well then I can argue that your radio/carbon dating is equally as suspect, and the bible has bee around for a hell of alot longer than current science...:eek: :D
 
Hi Joshua,

OK at this point I remind myself of the forum I'm in and (hopefully gracefully) bow out!

s.
 
Quahom1 said:
Why, I took it right from the Bible Snoop. Average life span was 900 plus years, then after the flood, the life span was shortened to 120 years, then again to three score and 10 (70 years). The last was as of 1400 BCE.

According to scripture, Noah didn't begin constructing the Ark until he was 600 years old.

Now unless you want to say the bible is suspect, well then I can argue that your radio/carbon dating is equally as suspect, and the bible has bee around for a hell of alot longer than current science...:eek: :D
Click to expand...
Oh, Q, and how wonderful I felt at the 7th day note. To find out you were just pulling my leg and now you are returning to 4k from Adam to Jesus? 1400 BCE? the great flood and ark allegory? So we are now talking during the bronze age...where we have history of continous civilizations in Asia, South America, England, Europe, and Africa...during that time?

Why is it that scientific dating methods are suspect unless they prove the age of biblical items?
 
wil said:
Oh, Q, and how wonderful I felt at the 7th day note. To find out you were just pulling my leg and now you are returning to 4k from Adam to Jesus? 1400 BCE? the great flood and ark allegory? So we are now talking during the bronze age...where we have history of continous civilizations in Asia, South America, England, Europe, and Africa...during that time?

Why is it that scientific dating methods are suspect unless they prove the age of biblical items?
Click to expand...

I meant what I said. God in my opinion is still resting...

just because it was written 4000 years ago doesn't mean it happened 4000 years ago...sheesh (never heard of bards before?)
 
wil said:
Oh, Q, and how wonderful I felt at the 7th day note. To find out you were just pulling my leg and now you are returning to 4k from Adam to Jesus? 1400 BCE? the great flood and ark allegory? So we are now talking during the bronze age...where we have history of continous civilizations in Asia, South America, England, Europe, and Africa...during that time?

Why is it that scientific dating methods are suspect unless they prove the age of biblical items?
Click to expand...


Gonna let you in on a little secret Wil. Time to the Irish is nothing. Places are everything. You say a year, he says 10 years, I say "Where?" That's how it works.

Don't take offense, please. None was meant.
 
wil said:
Why is it that scientific dating methods are suspect unless they prove the age of biblical items?
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, these scientific dating methods rely on using the speed of light c as a constant, however...

There is evidence to suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, therefore any equation using the speed of light as a constant is going to yield suspect results. :eek:
 
Snoopy said:
...(using radiometric age dating)...
Click to expand...
religion aside, that is not verifiable since man cannot go back in time; so, i'm skeptical, maybe cuz man has been known to be wrong before on their scientific theories or as some call educated guesses.
 
Hi,

The best method devised thus far by man for the elucidation of objective reality is the scientific method. This may not be appropriate for religious beliefs but it is certainly more reliable than any alternatives for examination of the nature of the universe (eg age of the Earth).

(Joshua I know I bowed out. Forgive me, for I am weak...)

s.
 
perhaps the act of creation gives carbon dating a false reading because it supernaturally speeds up events to give us the world and the universe in its completeness.
 
So, here's my question: Isn't it true that for Adam and Eve to literally be the parents of the human race there had to be mother-son or father-daughter sex going on? Or was it brother-sister sex?

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top