EvC Forum: Biblical Time Measurement Vs Modern Time Measurement

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Biblical Time Measurement Vs Modern Time Measurement

Heathen

Member (Idle past 1314 days)

Posts: 1067

From: Brizzle

Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 1 of 47 (247970)
10-01-2005 3:46 PM

Just read Brian's proposed new topic re: "Kings..."
A question popped into my head:

When a year is mentioned in the Bible (e.g. moses is described as living to be 120 years old) is it a solar year as we know it? or was there some other measure?

I suspect the latter and would be interested to find out how long a biblical year was. Or do literalists belive that moses was really 120 years old?

I guess this could be related to the whole creation-in-7-days question. Does 1 day literaly = 1 day or is it an age/eon...?

responses from literalists and skeptics welcomed.

Replies to this message:
	Message 3 by Brian, posted 10-01-2005 4:16 PM	Heathen has not replied
	Message 4 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-01-2005 5:38 PM	Heathen has replied

Heathen

Member (Idle past 1314 days)

Posts: 1067

From: Brizzle

Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 7 of 47 (248553)
10-03-2005 1:42 PM

Reply to: Message 4 by TheLiteralist
10-01-2005 5:38 PM

Re: literal years

The literalist writes:

But we take all the Patriarchs named in Genesis as having lived nearly a thousand years old, too -- no one ever quite made it to 1000, though.

Just to confirm.. you are being serious here? I'm not familiar with"the Patriarchs" you mention although the name Methuselah does ring a bell...

So as a Literalist you believe there were 'thousand year old men walking the earth... and these ages were used to date creation correctly? really?... no really? you're joking aren't you

This message is a reply to:
	Message 4 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-01-2005 5:38 PM		TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 8 by Brian, posted 10-03-2005 2:10 PM	Heathen has not replied
	Message 9 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 2:43 PM	Heathen has replied

Heathen

Member (Idle past 1314 days)

Posts: 1067

From: Brizzle

Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 13 of 47 (248597)
10-03-2005 3:26 PM

Reply to: Message 9 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 2:43 PM

Re: literal years

The Literalist writes:

No. I'm not joking. I AM a literalist...I believe Genesis to be literally true. I believe that Adam lived to be 930 years old (regular years). I believe the environmental differences between the pre-Flood earth and the post-Flood earth (i.e., we lived in a wrecked earth) explain the differences between pre-Flood ages and post-Flood ages. The declining ages given in the just-after-the-Flood lineages probably, imo, reflect various environmental variables reaching new equilibriums.

I am genuinely amazed and astounded... is there anything (extra-biblical)which can or attempts to back up this belief?
(apologies if this has already been discussed, I will do a search)

This message is a reply to:
	Message 9 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 2:43 PM		TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 17 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:15 PM	Heathen has replied
	Message 39 by Brian, posted 10-04-2005 10:46 AM	Heathen has not replied

Heathen

Member (Idle past 1314 days)

Posts: 1067

From: Brizzle

Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 18 of 47 (248673)
10-03-2005 6:22 PM

Reply to: Message 17 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 6:15 PM

Re: extra-biblical evidence?

Thanks for Filling me in Literalist... Still seems to me to be too full of 'ifs', 'maybes' and 'perhapses'

I really am amazed how people can simply 'believe' in things that otherwise don't seem to make sense. (don't mean that to be rude/insulting just genuine amazement.)

I guess it's too much for me to accept that people used to live to be a thousand.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:15 PM		TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 21 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:58 PM		Heathen has replied

Heathen

Member (Idle past 1314 days)

Posts: 1067

From: Brizzle

Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 23 of 47 (248691)
10-03-2005 7:10 PM

Reply to: Message 21 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 6:58 PM

Re: no offense taken

Literalist writes:

Yet, you accept that fish turned into amphibians, right?

I wouldn't say I believe 100% in evolution (hence my name), I don't know enough about it to be absolutely certain. but I do find it very convincing to the point that I probobly accept it as the most likely explanation.

BTW It's not so much "turned into" as evolved from. i.e. at some point a fish mutated (albeit very slowly over many small steps) to become an amphibian. This doesn't require that fish stop existing. merely that a new form of life began to evolve.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 21 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:58 PM		TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 42 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-12-2005 2:08 PM		Heathen has not replied

Heathen

Member (Idle past 1314 days)

Posts: 1067

From: Brizzle

Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 27 of 47 (248698)
10-03-2005 7:25 PM

Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
10-03-2005 7:19 PM

Re: Yes...it's a science forum

ringo writes:

Why not try to grow a giant chicken

cool! now that would impress me!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 25 by ringo, posted 10-03-2005 7:19 PM		ringo has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0