Hundreds Or Even 900 Years?


#53

Arguing about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the LXX is way off topic.

And I’m well aware that there is about a half a dozen different “families” of SeptuagintS.

That makes no difference to the fact that the LXX is a witness to an alternate tradition of the ages in Gen which is different from that in the MT.

Also, the Samaritan Pentateuch DOES have critical value, and is yet another witness to yet another alternate tradition of the ages of the Gen patriarchs.


#54

never mind


#55

No. Since they were brought up as ‘evidence’ for your conclusion in answer to the OP.

Therefore, evidence which discredits them, also deals with the response you gave about the OP.

It is not off topic, and I do not need to produce anything further on it, since it is not being refuted.


#56

He’s quoting and linking to a veritable cornucopia of whacky young earth and “flood geology” pseudoscientific nonsense websites and YouTube videos…

The apologetical equivalent of Twinkies and ho hos.


#57

never mind


#58

That would not be a picture of ‘flat earth’. It would be a picture of the absurdity of a local flood being 15 cubits above the then highest mountains on a spheroid earth.


Why Noah's story is not borrowed from pagan flood stories
#59

Never mind


#60

What? You want me to manually type out each quotation every time simply because it has a page number? I have all the sources in front of me. They are all accurate, and may be found in the links (or in the case of Sam Gipps hard copy book on my shelf, pages referenced).

I had manually typed them out before, and saved them to my HD/Desktop for easy perusal.


#61

never mind


#62

Ad hominem. It may be safely ignored.

Logical fallacy. Hand waving. Dismissal without demonstration of error. This also may be safely ignored.

Merely saying, “Nuh-uh.” is not a rebuttal.

It is also an unscriptural response. Proverbs 18:13,17; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 1:3.


#63

I have, and it’s origin is AnswersinGenesis, which teaches a spheroid earth. The picture is again, not demonstrating a flat earth which is error, but is demonstrating the absurdity of a local flood that has waters reaching 15 cubits (Genesis 7:20) above the highest mountains. Here is the page it is from - https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/was-there-really-a-noahs-ark-flood/

It is mocking (demonstrating the foolishness of) ethnocentric (local) flood theology on a spheroid earth


Why Noah's story is not borrowed from pagan flood stories
#64

Let us go back to OP please (unless rebuttal takes place).


#65

the free publication of anything on the internet has a lot to answer for , in many respects.


#66

No, for the same Moses that wrote Genesis, wrote Exodus (20:8-11, etc), etc.

Notice the ages given for births. Especially see Genesis 5:12,15,21. Moses faithfully recorded in Genesis 1, God speaking Genesis 1:14. Days are simply days (with number). Years are simply years (with number), based upon the Sun. See also Psalms 19:2. Connect to the specific time that God gave for the Flood, 120 years, Genesis 6:3.

Moses knew of great numbers (Genesis 24:60) and small, but used the standard calculation of time for their ages.

Even Peter alludes to the length of time Adam lived, just short of 1,000 years (a “day with the LORD”); 2 Peter 3:8; Genesis 2:17, 5:5.

See also what Jacob said in Genesis 47:9. Read carefully.


#67

He can’t.

Everything he’s spouting off is rooted in conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, and Protestant religious fundamentalism.

You won’t find any scientific or peer reviewed articles to back up anything he’s saying - unless you consider youtube comments peer review. :grin::joy:

@EvangAliveD Do you even believe in the peer review process? Exactly how much of modern science do you reject?


#68

:slight_smile:


#69

Again, logical fallacy, this time an ‘appeal to (supposed) authority’, or ‘false authority’. Peer-review is often (not always) myopic, limited in scope and extremely brief in content. This would be akin to saying that the evidence for young earth is non-existent because the majority of said evidence is never in ‘accepted’ peer-reviewed (even though some definitely is). This has two problems, namely appeal to ‘authority’ which is biased (because it openly states that they will not accept such material, though some slips through) and secondly to that which is apriorily ‘accepted’ by the ‘peer’.

Others recognize this as “bunk” - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/peer-review-way-validating-research-bunk


#70

Ok, I’d hoped it was just a misunderstanding.


#71

Creator God can do whatever God wants.


#72

I accept all valid (scripturally based) science (knowledge) and reject all ‘science falsely so called’ (1 Tim 6:20), aka ‘sci fi’ or false knowledge (ex. ‘big bang’, ‘ToE’, ‘Lamarckism’, ‘Darwinism’, ‘PuncEq’, ‘uniformitarianism’, ‘great age (millions, billions) for earth’ (coming through Babylonian philosophy, on into Egyptian, into Greco-Roman thought, down to our times with Charles Lyell, etc). For instance:

See Sextus Julius Africanus, " On the Mythological Chronology of the Egyptians and Chaldeans [Babylonians] - Ante-Nicene … Volume VI … pages 130-131 - https://books.google.co.zw/books?id=F-5YAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

See Lactantius, " Plato and many others of the philosophers …" - **- Ante-Nicene … Volume XXI. … pages 460-461. https://books.google.com/books?id=GIJPAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.