RE: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Tue Feb 28 2006 - 10:33:35 EST

Second try.

Dick Fischer wrote:

>>>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 isnít 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. Letís 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! Thatís 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.<<<<

GRM: See my note to Terry this morning on how to handle the Genealogies. It is a bit different. You are correct that one canít do a simple division and expect to have things turn out right.

>>>>But that isnít 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, itís only a matter of degree. Glenn, you might be able to sneak a swallow or two of the old manís whisky without him noticing, but you canít just drink the whole bottle!<<<<

GRM:Precisely. If there are some, there can be lots. I know that one guy in my genealogy (which I donít have with me in Boston and thus canít quote) lived over 300 years before his son took over the throne. But I also know that no one in the 2-400s lived that long, so, there must be extra guys. I also know that there is not a shred of evidence for hyperlongevity in the Sumerian period. How are we to resolve this? My suggestion to Terry seems reasonable.

>>>>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. <<<<

We are not talking about the genealogies during the kingdom. We are talking about a time before the Jewish nation. There seems to be a hole in your argument here because prior to Joshuaís time, there was no place to keep such records in such detail.

^^^

Donald Perrett wrote:

>>>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. [snip]

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

I suspect it is the only workable approach. Then the question becomes how old is Adam. Genetics says he canít be recent if he is the progenitor of all humanity. One either ditches progenitorship, or move Adam way back. There is no other option that will fit the data. In this regard, the true answer either does lie with Dick or with me. In my opinion, all other views are hopelessly contraobservational.


Received on Tue Feb 28 10:36:20 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 10:36:20 EST