Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

[Learner]

Why do you think it is that Methuselah and Lamech died within a couple of years before the Flood? Is it because it was history? I think the reason is that the scribes edited the lifespans until it didn't contradict the Flood story...

One could correctly assume corruption indeed, and if you were to consider there to be an opposite reason to yours e.g., strangely reducing time-spans, i.e., editing texts which causes contradictions, causing in fact, harm to Christianity. than being in favour of. Same as the gnostics influences, hijacking the narrative, where in some places new doctrines have intertwined into new beliefs etc..

Christians who are on the case, are well aware of the Masoretic text issues, being more problematic, anti-Christian, having a negative effect for the Gospels, not forgetting the masoretes were not Christians, descending from the pharisees. It would be understandable too, if one was to make the assumption that the reason why the maccabees are not mentioned in the masoretic text, is because of the rivalry between their conflicting beliefs.

(The King James Bible is still a good reference book, depending on the type of context you're looking for. I won't go into detail here.)

View attachment 42181
If it is all based on real history why is that there were many changes in the ages based on different manuscript versions?

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

if they had any knowledge whatsoever of Egypt's history, it could only have been though the likewise mythical terms of Egypt's own court histories and official propaganda. If those histories conflicted, presumably our Israelite scribes would simply declare the Egyptian account to be wrong and that of their king and priesthood to be correct. As, indeed, many religiously minded people still do today.

I think it is reasonable for them to know how many centuries ago the Pyramids were made.... if they can record all of the genealogy ages (age at fatherhood and death).

Christians are to keep studying and investigating 'even correcting each other' - more is revealed step by step through continuous study etc..
Here's a good video having an explanation to some of your issues., the dating of events in a 'much later' masoretic text, compared with the older Septuagint:

Were the pyramids built before the flood?

In all investigations, (no need to be scholars) it is better to have two or more witness, (the septuagint, dead-sea-scrolls & Pentateuch) as mentioned in the vid and highly emphasised in the Bible.

(I use the dead-sea-scrolls to be a reference for me, about the other books, which if not included in the DSS, I shouldn't take seriously, and just leave them out.)

 

[excreationist]

If it is all based on real history why is that there were many changes in the ages based on different manuscript versions?

What do you think history is, exactly?

Things that actually happened or things that people believed actually happened. (I think the scribes didn't believe that Noah actually lived to 950)
If history was all that mattered then that doesn't explain why the ages were changed so much in the different manuscripts....

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[excreationist]

Here's a good video having an explanation to some of your issues., the dating of events in a 'much later' masoretic text, compared with the older Septuagint:

Were the pyramids built before the flood?

I'm a really big fan of that video but it seems the popular young earth creationist organisations don't agree with it even though it reduces the problem with the pyramids - perhaps it has a lot to do with them liking the KJV....

 

[Politesse]

Things that actually happened or things that people believed actually happened. (I think the scribes didn't believe that Noah actually lived to 950)

It's not that simple. Histories are inherently political, a story that is told about the past for certain reasons and ends, and they always intermix with mythos in a way that is difficult to untangle.

 

[bilby]

If history was all that mattered then that doesn't explain why the ages were changed so much in the different manuscripts

Knowing how old someone is is an incredibly modern phenomenon. Even today, many people from the developing world have no idea of their date of birth.

I worked with a guy from Kenya whose birthday was completely made up. When he first applied for a passport, he was required to give his date of birth, so he asked his mother when he was born, and she said "in the summertime". So he picked a random date in July, and had a guess at what year it might have been.

We know that maximum human lifespans haven't changed much over the last few tens of thousands of years, and that average lifespan (life expectancy at birth) has increased dramatically since the nineteenth century. Probably some of the ages given for old testament characters are lunar calendar based - they're months rather than years - but they're also filtered through centuries of scribes thinking "that doesn't sound quite right", and were probably not accurate in any way to begin with.

The only people who knew how old they were with any real accuracy, until very recently, were people whose birth coincided with a rare and notable event whose date was recorded. If you were born on the day of (or in the year of) a particular emperor's or king's coronation or death, then you might know how old you were.

Otherwise you would be relying on your parents to guesstimate how many summers or harvests ago you were born. And they would probably disagree with each other on that question.

The modern conception of time is so all-pervasive that it's hard to believe that it isn't something that people have always had, but it really isn't. Only astrologers and navigators cared about time enough to be even remotely accurate about it, and until the solution of the longitude problem in the 18th century, and the 19th century railway boom, even they were nowhere near as accurate at time keeping as the lowliest labourer is expected to be in the developed world today.

The priests kept annual calendars that marked the agricultural events (and associated them to saints or gods); But the ordinary people didn't care if it was March 1 or February 15 - they cared whether or not the rains had started, or whether the last frost had happened, or whether the grain was ready to harvest, or whether the game herds had begun their migration - and these varied by days or weeks from one year to the next.

In a world where few people could count past ten without taking their shoes off, the question wasn't "How many years old is he?", it was just "Is he a child, a man, or an elder?". More accuracy was both unavailable, and pointless.

 

[excreationist]

Knowing how old someone is is an incredibly modern phenomenon. Even today, many people from the developing world have no idea of their date of birth.
......
In a world where few people could count past ten without taking their shoes off, the question wasn't "How many years old is he?", it was just "Is he a child, a man, or an elder?". More accuracy was both unavailable, and pointless.

"Incredibly modern"? Well what about this chart? Politesse said that the scribes thought that Noah literally lived to be 950 years old.

Also they made it so that Methuselah and Lamech died within a couple of years of the flood which I find impressive. I'd find it to be a headache to work it out even with pen and paper.

 

[excreationist]

Things that actually happened or things that people believed actually happened. (I think the scribes didn't believe that Noah actually lived to 950)

It's not that simple. Histories are inherently political, a story that is told about the past for certain reasons and ends, and they always intermix with mythos in a way that is difficult to untangle.

Well you asked me what I thought history is and that is what I thought. I'm not expert in the definition. You ignored all the other things I was asking you about. You talk about mythos yet you said that the author/s of Genesis thought Noah literally lived to be 950.

 

[Politesse]

Things that actually happened or things that people believed actually happened. (I think the scribes didn't believe that Noah actually lived to 950)

It's not that simple. Histories are inherently political, a story that is told about the past for certain reasons and ends, and they always intermix with mythos in a way that is difficult to untangle.

Well you asked me what I thought history is and that is what I thought. I'm not expert in the definition. You ignored all the other things I was asking you about. You talk about mythos yet you said that the author/s of Genesis thought Noah literally lived to be 950.

I'm not ignoring you, I've answered every question you posed. A lot of people believe in myths, surely you know this. Older histories rarely distinguish between mythology, legend, and report the way we would now. Nearly all ancient histories include the doings of gods, miracles, and so forth, that modern historians would put asterisks around.

 

[excreationist]

I'm not ignoring you, I've answered every question you posed. A lot of people believe in myths, surely you know this.

Well in post #19 I asked "If it is all based on real history why is that there were many changes in the ages based on different manuscript versions?"

I meant why are some of the ages are in the 30's while in others they are in their 130's.....

I don't consider asking "What do you think history is, exactly?" to be answering the question.

A lot of people believe in myths, surely you know this. Older histories rarely distinguish between mythology, legend, and report the way we would now. Nearly all ancient histories include the doings of gods, miracles, and so forth, that modern historians would put asterisks around.

Some of the scribes would be aware that there were changes in the ages and so know that it wasn't accurate "history".

 

[Politesse]

I'm not ignoring you, I've answered every question you posed. A lot of people believe in myths, surely you know this.

Well in post #19 I asked "If it is all based on real history why is that there were many changes in the ages based on different manuscript versions?"

I meant why are some of the ages are in the 30's while in others they are in their 130's.....

I don't consider asking "What do you think history is, exactly?" to be answering the question.

I was questioning the assumption that there is such a thing as a "real history" to compare to. All we have are a handful of documents, written by members of a now extinct culture with very different perspectives on the world. They certainly thought they were writing about real things. But it's necessary to ask why ancient histories are constructed the way they are, just as a smart historian is skeptical of modern accounts, and searches for biases and assumptions buried in the text.

 

[bilby]

"Incredibly modern"? Well what about this chart?

What about it?

It's obviously a very recent chart.

 

[bilby]

I'd find it to be a headache to work it out even with pen and paper.

It's a bit of adding and subtracting, not a proof of the bloody Riemann Hypothesis.

 

[excreationist]

"Incredibly modern"? Well what about this chart?

What about it?

It's obviously a very recent chart.

You said "Knowing how old someone is is an incredibly modern phenomenon". The numbers used in the chart were ancient. It might be all made up but it implies that some people also knew how old people were in reality.

 

[excreationist]

I'd find it to be a headache to work it out even with pen and paper.

It's a bit of adding and subtracting, not a proof of the bloody Riemann Hypothesis.

That doesn't contradict my point.

 

[bilby]

"Incredibly modern"? Well what about this chart?

What about it?

It's obviously a very recent chart.

You said "Knowing how old someone is is an incredibly modern phenomenon". The numbers used in the chart were ancient. It might be all made up but it implies that some people also knew how old people were in reality.

No, "it might be all made up" is the antithesis of "it implies that some people also knew how old people were in reality".

If they knew, why would they bother making it up?

The numbers used are in the chart might be ancient, but they aren't knowledge. I know with complete certainty that no human in history has lived in excess of nine hundred years; It's physiologically impossible without extraordinary technological abilities that humanity has never had at any time in the past (and indeed doesn't have today). Therefore literally nobody could have known that Methuselah lived for 969 years, because he didn't. Nobody did.

 

[Elixir]

I recall an article that tried to show a causal relationship between high latitudes and technological advancement. It cited distinct seasons as necessitating timekeeping, which supposedly underpins all technology.
Increasingly, I think population pressures (vs other environmental ones) underpin all technology.

nobody could have known that Methuselah lived for 969 years, because he didn't. Nobody did.

Except George Santos, who knew him as a boy.

 

[excreationist]

You said "Knowing how old someone is is an incredibly modern phenomenon". The numbers used in the chart were ancient. It might be all made up but it implies that some people also knew how old people were in reality.

No, "it might be all made up" is the antithesis of "it implies that some people also knew how old people were in reality".

What I'm saying is that they would know the ages of some real people - e.g. one guy might be 79, another 52, etc....

If they knew, why would they bother making it up?

The real ages involve different people to the ones in Genesis.

The numbers used are in the chart might be ancient, but they aren't knowledge. I know with complete certainty that no human in history has lived in excess of nine hundred years; It's physiologically impossible without extraordinary technological abilities that humanity has never had at any time in the past (and indeed doesn't have today). Therefore literally nobody could have known that Methuselah lived for 969 years, because he didn't. Nobody did.

Well Politesse seemed to be saying that the author/s of Genesis thought Noah really did live to be 950. Also quite a lot of Christians believe 900+ lifespans were historical.

 

[excreationist]

They certainly thought they were writing about real things. But it's necessary to ask why ancient histories are constructed the way they are, just as a smart historian is skeptical of modern accounts, and searches for biases and assumptions buried in the text.

In Genesis 11 the ages went from 130s to 30s... surely they'd know that they both can't be reality....

 

[Elixir]

Politesse seemed to be saying that the author/s of Genesis thought Noah really did live to be 950.

Based on what, do you suppose? 35 or 40 or more generations of reliable witnesses? Not buying that - I never met my great grandpas let alone greatx40.

Anyone who is older than everyone who knows them, can claim to be as old as they like.

In antiquity, a person living to age 90, would surely attain that status. They’d be a total freak, a god. But at least, possible.

 

[excreationist]

Politesse seemed to be saying that the author/s of Genesis thought Noah really did live to be 950.

Based on what, do you suppose? 35 or 40 or more generations of reliable witnesses? Not buying that - I never met my great grandpas let alone greatx40.

Anyone who is older than everyone who knows them, can claim to be as old as they like.

According to the traditional Bible Shem was alive when Abram was alive. He was the great-great (x7) grandfather of Abram and other people would be able to confirm that. (like Eber [Abram's great-great-great-great grandfather], etc)

Though in reality that wouldn't be the case so the author/s of Genesis would know that the ages were made up.