Adam's Place In History Is...

[dairygirl4u2c]

so if you look at why young earth types say the earth is only six thousand years old, they deduct it from the genology from Adam to Jesus. they measure approximations back to Jesus and get to six thousand. frankly, now that i think about it, given so many are said to live X hundred years old, i don't know how they were so sure they didn't just live thousands of years etc. not that that could expalin bilions of years or anything that we know is reality of our universe...

in any case. if we do take their reasoning a little seriously, we do have to come to grips with what to do with that lineage. if you look at it, let's say it does place Adam six thousand years ago. we know in reality, that that's nothing really in human evolution. was Adam just some dude who lived in a paradise or somewhere special, a first human amoung many?

granted, many will conded that the story is just a story, and that evolution is true, and that the earth is millions of years old. but we still have to come to grips with the lineage. most take seriously the genology though, and it basically is taking us to a dead end.
what are we to make of the lineage and its place in history, then, if we take all these things as is typically done by catholics?

here's the lineage if anyone's curious
http://ldolphin.org/2adams.html

[dairygirl4u2c]

i never thought about this issue much.
but here is what one person said, that there's missing people in the list, etc.

"In most cases it’s not very controversial that many (or even most) biblical genealogies are telescoped. However, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 differ in at least one respect. We see the repeated formula, “When X had lived Y years, he became the father of (i.e. ‘begat’, yalad) Z” (NIV), rather than simply “X was the father of Y” or “X the son of Y” as we see elsewhere in the Bible. So, some argue that our conclusions about other biblical genealogies may not apply to Genesis 5 and 11. Those holding Ussher’s chronology estimate that Adam and Eve were created around 6,000 years ago based on the assumption that the Genesis genealogies are complete (see Table 6, Genesis Genealogies). Nothing in the text, however, requires that these genealogies be complete. Bible scholars who hold that the genealogies are telescoped would place the creation of Adam and Eve at around 10 to 30,000 years ago but perhaps as late as 60,000 years ago.10 Some have tried to push the genealogies so far back that they suggest Adam and Eve might have been Neanderthals (or Homo erectus or australopithecines); however, this claim is unsupported and so is rejected by the vast majority of Bible scholars. But who’s right? What should we conclude about these genealogies?"

[dairygirl4u2c]

In the example of the Mosaic genealogies (above), it was possible to be very firm in our conclusions due to the abundance of biblical and historical details surrounding these events. The opposite is true for the Genesis genealogies. From the time of Abraham on, there is widespread consensus regarding dates and chronology. However, for the time period before Abraham, which is covered by the Genesis genealogies, there is very little biblical or historical information on which to build solid chronological details. Without such supporting information, we would do well to tread lightly and avoid being dogmatic about our conclusions. Still, while we can’t be conclusive in regards to the nature of the Genesis genealogies, there are a number of points that can be made.

1.Examining biblical genealogies shows that ancient genealogies are generally telescoped rather than complete. Unlike modern readers, ancient readers were concerned with ancestry rather than the number of generations and so would generally not assume that a given genealogy was complete. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on those who hold that the Genesis genealogies are complete rather than the reverse.
2.Many, perhaps most, of the early church fathers held to a recent date for the creation of Adam, and hence held that the genealogies were complete (or nearly complete). However, their basis for this conclusion had little to do with the genealogies themselves. There was a widespread belief that all of human history (from Adam to the return of Christ) would last exactly 6,000 years and could be used as a basis for predicting Christ’s return. This interpretation is no longer accepted today, yet it had a strong influence on how the early church fathers interpreted the Genesis genealogies. Similarly, the dependence of the early church fathers on Greek and Latin translations of the Old Testament, rather than the original Hebrew, also led to a faulty understanding of these genealogies. (For more details see The Genesis Genealogies in Early Jewish and Christian Writings below.)
3.In Scripture, lists of numbers or names that are intended to be summed are typically followed by a total. For example, the census of each of the tribes of Israel given in Numbers 1 includes a grand total in verse 46. Another example is the genealogical listing of Jacob’s children and grandchildren as they prepare to move to Egypt (Genesis 46). After listing all of the names, we are told that the total number of individuals involved is 70 (Genesis 46:27). If Moses had intended the ages at fatherhood in Genesis 5 and 11 to be summed then he would have listed the total amount of time spanned. This feature is noticeably absent. Moreover, nowhere in all of Scripture is there any indication that these genealogies could be used as the basis of a chronology.
4.Henry Morris argues, “The record [of Genesis 5] is perfectly natural and straightforward and is obviously intended to give both the necessary genealogical data to denote the promised lineage and also the only reliable chronological framework we have for the antediluvian period of history” (emphasis mine).11 As we have observed, biblical genealogies are certainly not “obvious” or “straightforward” in the way that Morris and many others argue. Moreover, Morris’ statement significantly contradicts what he wrote with John C. Whitcomb some 15 years earlier.12 In that work, they included an appendix devoted to showing why the Genesis genealogies are probably not complete. To support their conclusion, they presented eight lines of evidence:
a.The number of years is not totaled.
b.The name and years of Cainan do not appear in the Hebrew text.
c.Genesis 5 and 11 are perfectly symmetrical in form.
d.Information is given concerning each patriarch, which is irrelevant to a strict chronology.
e.The postdiluvian patriarchs could not have been contemporaries of Abraham.
f.The Bible implies a great antiquity for the Tower of Babel.
g.The Messianic links were seldom firstborn sons.
h.The term “begat” sometimes refers to ancestral relationships.
Most of these arguments are identical to ones I have presented here. To be fair, Morris and Whitcomb clearly state that the gaps are real but limited—no more than 5,000 years between Noah and Abraham.13
5.If the presence of personal biographical information, specifically the age at fatherhood, is not for the purpose of establishing a chronological framework (as Morris suggested in the previous point), what then is the purpose of this information? Again, we have to develop our understanding based on a systematic study of biblical genealogies. A study on the inclusion of the age at death in genealogies reveals a distinct trend: it is included only if it is exceptional, specifically if it is 100 years or more. This trend is not surprising, since old age is a sign of blessedness. Inclusion of age at fatherhood seems to follow the same trend, i.e., it is included if it is truly exceptional. (A note of caution must be made here. The age at fatherhood is consistent with the trend, but we cannot be definitive because there are so few examples.) Both the age at fatherhood and the age at death are certainly exceptional for all the individuals included in the Genesis genealogies.
6.The Mosaic genealogies share a large number of similarities with the Genesis genealogies, yet they contain a large gap between Amram and Moses. Points of similarity include: (a) the genealogy bridging a large span of time between important biblical figures; (b) using “begat” (yalad) to connect generations; and (c) inclusion of personal details, such as age at death. Therefore, none of these features of the Genesis genealogies can be used to argue for the genealogies being complete.
7.Both Genesis 5 and 11 use the verb “begat” to connect one generation to the next. In Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59, this same verb connects Amram and his wife, Jochebed, to Moses even though there are many generations between them. (Genesis 46 likewise demonstrates that “begat” can refer to non-immediate descendents.) Together, these verses demonstrate that “begat” can be genuinely used in precisely the way suggested for the Genesis genealogies.

[Groo the Wanderer]

the earth aint 6000 years old. and you talk to yourself a lot, no?

[dairygirl4u2c]

the point of this thread is, if the earth isn't 6000 years old, what are we to make of the geneology back to Adam, which ends six thousand years ago.
i answered my own question pretty well.

[Mark of the Cross]

I'm no expert, but I read once where in ancient languages the term 'a thousand years' could refer to any vast amount of time, since people had little concept of vast ages such as the age of the earth. If this is true, it could mean that there were 6 time periods or events that could span billions of years in total, but each could be significantly different to each other.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't think anywhere the bible says 'thousand years' or 'six thousand years'.
i think they only way they deduce the six thousand year thing, is from measuring the geneology line.

regardless of the age of the earth though, it's curious what to make of such a short line from Adam to Jesus.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297648466' post='2212106']
regardless of the age of the earth though, it's curious what to make of such a short line from Adam to Jesus.
[/quote]

Of course, we all know that in order to be saved one must believe that our planet is 6,000 years old. I have this cockamamy idea that St. Matthew was telling Jews that Jesus the Christ was a fellow descendant of Adam through Moses and King David. I know that's completely irrational, unbiblical, and has no bearing whatsoever on our salvation, but it sounds like a good story so I'm stickin' to it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' timestamp='1297745027' post='2212492']
Of course, we all know that in order to be saved one must believe that our planet is 6,000 years old. I have this cockamamy idea that St. Matthew was telling Jews that Jesus the Christ was a fellow descendant of Adam through Moses and King David. I know that's completely irrational, unbiblical, and has no bearing whatsoever on our salvation, but it sounds like a good story so I'm stickin' to it.
[/quote]

whatta catholic

[Catherine Therese]

I can't speak for other faith traditions, but most serious Catholic scholarship in the area of Scripture agrees that the different books of the Bible need to be understood in the context in which they are written. This is a crucial principle both in the Old and the New Testaments.

There are strong arguments supporting the theory that Genesis had several authors and was written down many centuries after it was composed. The Genesis story was transmitted via Targums, word of mouth traditions handed from Rabbi to Rabbi, prone to the 'Chinese Whispers' effect over time where the individual Rabbi had his own storytelling/teaching style and gave the same basic story his own flavour. The two accounts of creation that we have received in Genesis, generally accepted to be composed by the J author and the P author if memory serves. The J author, i.e. the 'Yahwist' author, has a style that is preoccupied with the otherworldly manifestation of God as the all powerful IAM (as opposed to another author, the E, or Elohist, author, whose preoccupation is with another manifestation of God, that of Elohim, with a more personal relationship with the characters in the book). The P author, i.e. the priestly author, has yet a different focus again. So we have the J and the P accounts of Creation, both telling the same general story with the same basic characters but telling them in a very different style. Some of the facts are a little different, and these differences aren't significant from an historical point of view.

The reason for this is that the Genesis account does not fit the genre of historical text. It is most certainly a narrative, and refers to some milestones in early human history, but[b] the text is not intended to be taken in the modern-day journalistic or analytical historical sense. The MESSAGE of the narrative is what is important.[/b] SOME of what is presented in the text may be historical fact, and some may not. We really don't have enough information at this stage to be able to know one way or another. It is possible that archaeology may provide us with more information to fill in some of those gaps, but at this stage the Church in her wisdom does not claim to know what simply is not known. The Church allows the faithful to choose to take the details of the creation account literally or to choose to take them more figuratively, and modern scholarship at this stage tends towards what I have just described. (Its possible that there is more current information than this - I'm working fro memory, the last time I studied this material was a little over two years ago, now.)

Another note is that very few Catholic Scripture Scholars still maintain the tradition of Mosaic authorship. They concede that it is possible that there was a Mosaic contribution at some point, but it is far too easily proven that the book of Genesis was a compilation of works rather than a single work in itself using basic redactive analysis such that no serious scholar that I'm aware of (happy to hear about it if I'm wrong) upholds this theory anymore.

As far as the genealogy of Adam is concerned - I'll have to revisit the facts, but I believe that even the genealogy contains lessons in it that are symbolic things tied in with the concept of covenant, the concept of being the first-born of the Lord. I'm pretty clear on the authorship and genre issues, but the genealogy thing I'm a bit shaky on and will need to go back to what I studied there. I believe its potentially feasible that the genealogy is historically accurate in terms of the names. As to the ages and the

The symmetry highlighted by dairygirl4u2c sounds interesting. I know that particularly in the psalms there is a textual device called a 'chiasm' that involves a symmetry of sorts. I wonder if that is anything like this symmetry you're mentioning? More to investigate...

[dairygirl4u2c]

the fact that humans are like a hundred thousand years old, and Adam could only be some small thousands of years old... almost seems to force us to conclude that the story of Adam and Eve is just a story. no?

[Selah]

Dairy, you need an avatar. Please? :)

[KnightofChrist]

Dairy, you need an avatar. Please? :)

[reyb]

the fact that humans are like a hundred thousand years old, and Adam could only be some small thousands of years old... almost seems to force us to conclude that the story of Adam and Eve is just a story. no?

 

Consider this in your thread (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html)

[KnightofChrist]

Consider this in your thread (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html)

 

When will you be answering these questions Reyb?

 

    KnightofChrist, on 12 Mar 2013 - 10:29, said:

    When you saw the Lord Jesus Christ what happened? Did you fall at His as dead?

 

    KnightofChrist, on 12 Mar 2013 - 10:42, said:

    But did you actually fall down as if dead? Did your hair turn white as snow? Were you struck with fear? What did His face look like?

 

    Apotheoun, on 12 Mar 2013 - 11:24, said:

    Prove to me that you saw Jesus.