RE: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

From: Donald Perrett (E-mail) <>
Date: Tue Feb 28 2006 - 02:08:29 EST

Hi Dick and Glenn,

Not that I hold one specific way on the issue of patriarch ages, but both of
you could be right. While I do agree with Dick's view that Adam is the
spiritual (monotheic) first man, Glenn may also be right about the age
problem. If one were to consider that the ages are not necessarily the
person but rather the family line. This is used as a dynasty (China), house
(England), etc. Then the factoring issue would not exist. No need to
divide or multiple. If the influencial period of Noah was 100000 and his
son only 10 then the age of the family (house/dynasty/etc) would neither
conflict with biblical interpretation, geology, archeology, genetics, etc.
And if I were to say that Noah was 100 when he had his first child, that
could mean that his son was born when he was 60 actual (possible in human
terms - my grandfather's last one was when he was 66 and I know a man that
just had one at 83 (with a 27 year old)) and his son gained power/influence
when the son was 40. Then the next dynasty began 100 years after Noah was
born. We may think in terms of one dynasty taking over another, but in many
cultures concurrent dynasties reined in opposing city-states. If Noah
didn't die until he was 100000000000 it wouldn't mean that's when he died.
It would mean that his legacy died then (spiritually speaking).

As I said this is not a strong view of mine, but it is certainly possible.

For Dick or Glenn:
Does this idea have any specific evidence against it?

Don P

  -----Original Message-----
  From: []On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
  Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 00:27
  To: ASA
  Subject: RE: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

  Hi Glenn, you wrote:

  Dick, Given this answer, I have to ask. Why is it do you think, that we
never have found skeletons showing evidence of such antiquity? Gravity and
growth gradually change the skeleton, as well as bones get broken and even
one bone every 20 years, we should end up with someone quite scarred in
their skeleton. Any ideas?

  Abraham's bones are in the tomb of the patriarchs. Dig them up and check
him out.

  Look, Glenn, Genesis says Noah lived 500 years and begat three sons.
Okay, so we say that isn't possible he must have been younger than that.
Fine, make him younger. Then the flood came 100 years later. Too long we
say. So we shorten that up. Next, he lived 350 years after the flood.
Again, too long so we shorten that up. Let's just divide through by a
factor of ten and make Noah 95 when he died. That works. Now Abraham lived
to 175. Too long, so we divide that by ten and get 17.5. Oops! That's too
young. We have to choose a different factor to get a reasonable age for
Abraham. In other words, we would have to decide how long is a reasonable
age for each patriarch and just give him that age disregarding whatever age
Genesis reported.

  But that isn't really what the issue is. What you want is missing
generations. By questioning their ages you are saying there must be missing
generations. A half dozen or so unnamed patriarchs would make the average
age a more reasonable number, perhaps. But you then have a precedent for
positing missing generations. If there are half a dozen missing there may
be several thousand, it's only a matter of degree. Glenn, you might be able
to sneak a swallow or two of the old man's whisky without him noticing, but
you can't just drink the whole bottle!

  Furthermore, the Jewish scribes were far more careful than that. Up until
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD the temple held the genealogies of
every Jew. It was public record. It might be possible to miss a few names
over the centuries when you consider periods of bondage, wandering in the
desert, wars, and so on. But omitting thousands of generations? Uh, uh,
somebody would notice.

  Dick Fischer

  ~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association

  Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Tue Feb 28 02:09:57 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 02:09:57 EST