Re: Time Travel Craft anyone ?

Dario Giraldo (
Sat, 8 Mar 1997 22:17:05 -0800 (PST)

On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Glenn Morton wrote:

> These arguments have lasted over 130 years. If one wishes to have an impact
> and influence people for his side, he had better be prepared for quite a lot
> of discussions.

The only impact I want to leave in my circle of influence is the leading
of people to the cross. And the only thing I need for this is the gospel
of Jesuschrist which is the power to carry on this task. Logic and
reasoning will never work. Did Paul succeeded in using logic and
reasoning in Athens ? Did Paul made an impact on his day ?

> "The remarkable increase in the average length of life during the past 2,000
> years -from 20-25 years to 70 years under favourable conditions--has
> increased the likelihood that a person may live to the maximum limit of his
> span of life."
More remarkable was the life span before the flood and division of the
earth: humans lived to 900+ years. What happened in these two events
that shortened the lifespan to slightly over 100 by the time Abraham came
into the picture.

> >
> >>There are 20 generations from Abe to Adam, who supposedly lived
> >>4004 BC. A difference of around 2100 years. During this period one must
> >>believe the average siring tookplace at 105 years. There are lots of gaps
> >>in these records, I just believe that there are more than you but we both
> >>MUST believe that there are gaps.
> >
> >Must believe in gaps ?? Why ?
> >
> >Let's use 4004 BC as a starting point:
> Let me alter your chart according to what the bible itself says.

Glenn, you set the time at 4004 BC. I just took Scripture and compiled
dates. That is where the chart came from and what The Bible says. If you
don't like the results, then propose a different scenario. Ever read 'The
Old Testament Bible History' by Alfred Edersheim ? You'll find more
charts there. But you won't like them either.

> >
> >Year Birth of: Age Siring Children
> >4004 Adam 130
> >3874 Seth 105
> >3769 Enos 90
> >3679 Cainan 70
> >3609 Mahaleel 65
> >3544 Jared 162
> >3382 Enoch 65
> >3317 Methuselah 187
> >3130 Lamech 182
> >2948 Noah 500
> >2448 Sem 102
> >2348 Flood -Couldn't resist :-)
> >2346 Arphaxad 35
> ? Cainan ? Luke 3:36
> ? Salah 35
> ? Heber 30
> ? Peleg 30
> ? Reu 30
> ? Serug 30
> ? Nahor 29
> ? Terah 130
> ? Abraham 99
> ? Isaac 58
> >>Look at Luke 3:36 where a new guy is
> >>inserted into the genalogy who does not appear in Genesis.
> >>
> >
> >Unfortunately we don't have access to the records and lineage archives that
> >Luke had in the 1st century so we can't really know why the name is there.
> >It could have been a levirate marriage, but nobody in their day questioned
> >or challenged the validity of the lineage.
> So that gives you the right to leave this guy out of the lineage you
> presented? If you leave him out, you are saying that Luke is wrong. Luke
> says that Arpachshad was the father of Cainan who in turn was the father of
> Selah. But if that is wrong, in your view, what does that say about the
> inspiration of Luke? Including him presents a problem for the inspiration of
> Genesis, It means that the Genesis genalogies are incomplete. The only way
> out is to say that Genesis is true but incomplete.

Left him out because I don't have any record of his age. But if it makes
you feel any better, the put him in.

Do you know what a levirate marriage is ? In any case, it was the custom
or practice of a man fathering children with the wife of his brother in
the event that the brother died without any children. To maintain his
brother bloodline, sort of. When this situation happened, both men were
fathers of the same child.

That is why I mentioned that we don't have Luke or the archives he used to
compile his genealogy. That doesn't mean that Genesis or Luke are
erroenous or full of gaps. As I demostrated in with the chart, there
aren't any gaps.

But if you insist that gaps exist, hey you'll win. For you they are, for
me they aren't and I proved. Take the names down and do the math (using
Scripture) and tell me otherwise.

> snip...
> Maybe their view of what constitutes a lineage is different from ours.
This is an easy one to resolve. Find a Hassidic Jewish Rabbi and ask him
what constitues a lineage for them. Remember Matthew was a jew who was
writing a book for jewish readers. That is why he mentions OT prophecy a
lot. His audience will know what was he talking about. After all, if one
doesn't understand how the jewish marriage were arranged then, one can't
understand Jesus words asking His Father about the cup on the night He was
taken prisioner.

> Look at Matthew 1:1. It says, "A record of the genalogy of Jesus
> Christ, the son of david, the son of Abraham" This use of "the sone of"
> skips lots and lots of generations. Is Matthew 1:1 false? No. The term
> "the son of' means "the ancestor of"

The point that Matthew is passing here is to show the correct persons in
His lineage so that Jesus can claim the title of Messiah. After all God
promised Abraham, Israel and David directly that the Messiah will come
from their direct descendants. Something God didn't do with Moses or
Solomon for example.

> I agree. so that means that Luke's insertion of Cainan is also true and the
> genealogies are incomplete.

I believe in this exchange of data, that there is a lack understanding of
the meaning and importance that complete genealogies were to jewish people
living in the 1st century AD (when the book was written). We do faulty
analysis in taking a XX century north american perspective to view these
Scriptures with pure technical eyes. Textual criticism of a book must take
into account the setting and targeted audience of the work.

Best Regards,

Dario Giraldo
Lacey, Washington