Re: [asa] New Evidence for Two Human Origins

From: <philtill@aol.com>
Date: Mon Oct 08 2007 - 16:36:17 EDT

Thanks, Dick.  You make some good points here.  I haven't spent any time looking at the timelines if the Patriarchical dates are shifted downwards. 

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:46 am
Subject: RE: [asa] New Evidence for Two Human Origins

Hi Phil:

 

If you assume the patriarchs lived normal life spans and place Abraham at Ur around 2000 BC then twenty generations wouldn’t even stretch 900 years to get Adam in ahead of the flood.  You can’t just change something you don’t like without it having a negative impact somewhere else.  You would also have to posit missing unnamed generations in order to stretch the line of patriarchs or come up with corresponding dates to accommodate.  I see Adam at 4800 BC, corresponding to the archaeological dating of Eridu, the flood at 2900 BC from clay layers dated by archaeologists, and Abraham around 2000 BC irrespective of published patriarchal life spans.

 

There may be some problem areas in Genesis but I don’t see patriarchal ages to be one of them and why fix something that ain’t broke?  Keep in mind that we are missing all of the literature that was available to Berossus when he compiled the history of Babylon and to Josephus when he wrote the history of the Jews.  About all we have are the sacred Scriptures because great effort was expended to preserve them.  When armies conquered cities they destroyed everything.

 

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

www.genesisproclaimed.org

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of philtill@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 3:11 PM
To: dickfischer@verizon.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] New Evidence for Two Human Origins

 

 

It’s one piece of evidence, whether it’s weak or strong is a value judgment.  But taken together with Josephus and Jubilees, I’m convinced the Jews thought he lived a long life though they also knew in hindsight he wasn’t immortal.  In the Gilgamesh Epic our flood hero is sought out because it was widely thought he was immortal.

Hi Dick,
The two hypotheses are (1) that the original author said (and meant to say) that the Patriarchs lived long lives, or (2) that he didn't say (and didn't mean to say) that they lived long lives.  This is what I see as the balance of evidence:

(1) That the author meant to say they lived long lives
     a.  The SKL also tells of long lives
     b.  Utnapushtim and other flood heros were immortal in the tales recorded about them
     c.  There is a general tapering off of the long lives after the flood
     d.  All three surviving texts of Genesis (Masoretic, LXX, and Samaritan) tell of long lives
     e.  Josephus and Jubilees wrote that Noah had long lives
    f.   Some researches believed we have the biological capacity to live much longer if our DNA were adjusted

(2) That the author didn't mean to say they lived long lives
     a.  The SKL actually shows evidence of mistranslating number systems rather than teaching long lives, and this accords well with what probably happened in the Bible account
     b.  The mesopotamian accounts were part of fabulous mythology and were likely written after the SKL had been mistranslated, so that the appearance of long ages in the SKL actually gave rise to the exaggerations in the mythology
     c.  The internal evidence actually supports the view that numbering systems were changed more strongly than the idea that it is a biological tapering off
           (i) The tapering off is not smooth when examined closely, but instead indicates "step" changes of the mean, just like the SKL. 
            (ii) It is impossible to believe that the numbers presented in the Bible today are the same as they were at the time of the Patriarchs or even at the time of the Exodus, because the numbers in the Bible today belong to a number system tha had not yet been invented at the time.  So there must have been a change of the number system
            (iii)  The numerical evidence indicates that the Jews did NOT use a base-10 system at the time of the Exodus censuses but DID use a base-10 system by the time of the Davidic census, and that the number system of the Exodus censuses was mistranslated.  Other numbers in the Bible show evidence of mistranslation as has been widely documented by many researchers.
     d.   The differences between the three manuscripts strongly supports the view that the Patriarch's numerals were not understood, were hotly contested, and were the result of three versions of the text.  Each version show evidence of tampering with the numbers to make the timing of the Flood consistent or other similar features.
     e.  Josephus and the author of Jubilees were written long after the three surviving manscripts were settled, so they based their views not on original evidence but on the same mistranslations that we see in our Bible.
     f.  Whether we could live long lives if our DNA were adjusted does not prove that our anscestors actually did.

Is this a fair summary?  The way I see it, the evidence shows a compounding of mistakes based upon even earlier translational mistakes.  There is (IMO) no evidence to the contrary at all -- none. 

You can tell by the way I wrote this that I think (2) is a much better hypothesis.  ;)

Phil

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 8 16:41:52 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 16:41:53 EDT