Genesis 5: 27 Commentary

Re post 16. I don’t doubt that you doubt. If you were to see it with your own eyes you would still not believe me. I know what an unbeliever you are, Tiuche.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/25/2011 16:55 pm

Charles you jog 5 miles a day? Are telling the truth? Well, i doubt it!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3264 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/25/2011 15:05 pm

In post 14 Tiuche said: “Were those who change for the Word of God or against it? common sense would dictate that they like you were against the Word of God…so they change it!”

Interesting! So Tiuche is saying that the Scribes who changed the Bible to the one we have today were against the Word of God! Nice going, Tiuche.

He also said: “And if it is nothing but useless manuscript why waste your time here, are you trying to be a hero to bring gloom to hopeful believers?”

I take it that Tiuche would rather have believers cling to false hope than find the truth!

And, as usual, in his on-going anger Tiuche could not keep himself from insulting me: “Your action is both illogical and stupid!” he said. It would be illogical and stupid of me to comment about his angry insults.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/25/2011 14:13 pm

Who change the numbers Charles? Were those who change for the Word of God or against it? common sense would dictate that they like you were against the Word of God…so they change it! Do you not still see that the claim that you have that the Bible is full of errors goes against your action of trying to be so meticulously against it? And if it is nothing but useless manuscript why waste your time here, are you trying to be a hero to bring gloom to hopeful believers? Your action is both illogical and stupid!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3264 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/25/2011 13:26 pm

re post 12. Tiuche, I am sorry I am not “rounded”. I jog 5 miles a day. (There! You’re always trying to dig up things about my personal life, now you have another little tidbit!)

You always quoted opinions of others. Whether they are relevant doesn’t seem to matter to you. You don’t seem to have opinions of your own because you’re totally brainwashed.

This is the part that you keep avoiding:

THEY SOON REALIZED THAT, AS PRESENTED IN TEXT THAT HAD COME DOWN TO THEM, THESE NUMBERS IMPLY THAT SOME OF NOAH’S ANCESTORS LIVED THROUGH THE FLOOD. YET GENESIS EXPLICITLY SAYS THE OPPOSITE: NONE SURVIVED OTHER THAN THOSE ON THE ARK. THE SCHOLARS SOLVED THE PROBLEM STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND EFFICIENTLY. THEY SIMPLY CHANGED THE NUMBERS.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/25/2011 13:13 pm

I am not saying, that I just gave you the opinions of others to make you more rounded, but if you reject the opinions of others and insist on your “narrow minded opinion” then that is your business.

By TIUCHE (wrote 3264 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/25/2011 13:01 pm

Tiuche, what you’re saying in post 10 is that there are various translations and Bible apologists pick the translation that suits them best and call it the word of god. That sounds like a pretty good definition for the word “hypocritical”.

My source (see post 1 and post 9) says that later translations changed the NUMBERS, not the text. They changed the ages of Noah’s ancestors. How is CHANGING THE AGES of Noah’s ancestors be “more faithful” to the original?!?! Is there any limit to the sheer dishonesty of Bible apologists?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/25/2011 12:47 pm

THE SEPTUAGINT AS A BASIS…
(source of excerpt: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100903164234AAQcWqj
The Septuagint is a translation, and has gone through many generations of copies at the hands of Christians who were less zealous in preserving the Old Testament than the New. The Hebrew copies were made by Jewish scribes who had a more urgent interest in getting it right. The Dead Sea Scrolls seem to confirm that the later Mazoretic compilation was quite accurate, and without the problems of translation.

In cotrast, the Textus Receptus version of the New Testament was a 16th Century compilation based on the Greek Orthodox Septuagint many generations removed from the original gospels and letters. The Latin Vulgate was a 5th Century Latin translation from the Septuagint and the Hebrew, and has shown to be more faithful to the oldest surviving manuscripts than the TR. It comes down to a matter of diligent, faithful copying, as few times as can be managed.

By TIUCHE (wrote 3264 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/25/2011 12:28 pm

Tiuche (post 8), see my post 1. You were so busy insulting me that you didn’t even read what I wrote.

Here’s the exact quotation from the book that I mentioned in post 1:
“Early in the transmission of the biblical books, anonymous scribal copyists began to calculate the chronology of various events about which the Bible gives numerical information. For example, these scholars began to add up the numbers given in Genesis. They soon realized that, as presented in text that had come down to them, these numbers imply that some of Noah’s ancestors lived through the flood. Yet Genesis explicitly says the opposite: none survived other than those on the ark. The scholars solved the problem straightforwardly and efficiently. They simply changed the numbers. The unchanged version of the numbers survives in the text of the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (Gen. 5). For the most part our modern Bibles translate the traditional text and therefore present the changed numbers.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/24/2011 15:09 pm

Charles You said: The Greek Septuagint indicates that there were OTHER people besides Noah and his immediate faily that lived through the Great Flood.

So post it a short excerpt from the Greek Septuagint here Charles so we can see it!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3264 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/24/2011 15:01 pm

Re post 6. I have to conclude that Tiuche agrees that the modern translations of Genesis have been falsified. If he didn’t agree he would have debated my post 1 rather than just get angry and demonstrate his ignorance.

I need to keep the issue clear here: The Greek Septuagint indicates that there were OTHER people besides Noah and his immediate faily that lived through the Great Flood.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/24/2011 14:50 pm

Thousands of old copies of the Book and you won’t still believe?With Bilions of copies of the Holy bible poured into all the world, and you still would not believe? Is that logical? You rather believe in the Shastras, how many old copies exist? What kind of jester are you?

Your dead sea scrolls? They are not yours! Those dead sea scrolls are old copies of the Holy Scriptures!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3264 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/24/2011 14:32 pm

Tiuche, you ADMIT you’re wrong in post 4 because, once again, you got angry, personal and insulting. It’s obvious you and Roland G have no valid arguments against me.

FYI, there aren’t 66 holy books. There are thousands of them. You believe in 66 books that some MORTAL MEN chose to call holy. Other people around the world have other holy books that other mortal men chose to call holy. If you think that the “logical” thing to do is to “rely on those who were before us”, then be logical and read the Shastras. The authors of the shastras came BEFORE the authors of the Bible. Go ahead. Be “logical”!

You are a total failure here, Tiuche,

Does ANYBODY here want to discuss my Dead Sea Scrolls excerpt in post 1?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/24/2011 14:02 pm

THE SCRIPTURES COMPILED into the 66 books of the Holy bible by those whom God have inspired had already gave you that only eight (8) persons survive the worldwide deluge in 2503 B.C. and that all of us came from them.

Okay you want to go back and would not rely on those who were before us (is that logical or using common sense?)…okay go …and search back just take care for there are many pits and traps laid by your enemy (you might think he is your friend…the enemy might have already even taken you)…so?

Your claim of searching might just be lip service? Do you have enough time? Your 67 years old and…or is your claim search just a drama to help in deceiving other searchers? Go and report to us later what you found if you are serious!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3264 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/24/2011 13:37 pm

Thanks Tiuche (post 4), but that doesn’t answer whether he was killed (a) BEFORE the flood (b) BY the flood, or (c) AFTER the flood. I would like to learn the old Greek Septuagint dates for Methuselah and other Noah ancestors who lived through the flood.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/24/2011 12:01 pm

Just by the meaning of the name METHUSELAH, which means wHEN HE IS DEAD IT SHALL BE SENT” or ” WHEN I DIE judgement will come”, we have already a hint of whether he died of the flood or before the flood!

Methuselah (*3472 B.c.-2503 B.C.) died days, or months or even on the very day that the rain of the flood began to pour…he died more or less 2503 B.C. the year the worldwide flood came.

*more or less.

By TIUCHE (wrote 3264 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/24/2011 11:44 am

DID METHUSELAH LIVE THROUGH THE FLOOD?

Methuselah was Noah’s grandfather. Not sure if that makes him a good man. He was not invited to the ark, presumably because he was already dead. But I’m not so sure. Bear with me, for I am not a scholar, but one humbly trying to find the truth. Here’s my limited analysis:

A. According to the current editions of the Bible, Methuselah was 187 years old when he had Lamech and lived another 782 years to a total of 969 years. Now Lamech was 182 years old when he had Noah, and Noah was 600 years old when the flood occurred. Now add 187, 182, and 600 and you’ll get that the flood occurred 969 after the birth of Methuselah. So, lo and behold, Methuselah died the year of the flood. Did the flood kill him? If it did, that would mean that he was one of the bad people that God wanted to get rid of.

B. I have a Dead Sea Scrolls book by Wise, Abegg and Cook and on page 564 there is something interesting. In the transmission of Biblical books scholars realized that, according to age information given in Genesis, some of Noah’s ancestors lived through the flood. These scholars solved the problem by changing the numbers in Genesis. Thus, the Biblical translations we have today do not have this problem any more. But the original numbers survive in the Greek text of the Septuagint.

C. At this point I don’t have access to the original Septuagint. The best I could find was a more recent English version of it online: http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm So I expected to see the same numbers as any modern translation. Indeed this online version that I found also says that Methuselah died at age 969. However there is an interesting difference. It says that Methuselah was 167 years old when he had Lamech , not 187, and that he lived 802 years after the birth of Lamech, not 782.

From all this it seems more than apparent that the numbers have been tampered with, just like my DSS book claims. Was Methuselah, then, one of the people who lived through the flood?

I would appreciate any OBJECTIVE input. Thanks.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/24/2011 03:55 am