That's what got us where we are today.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
men living beyond 200 years, fiction? or bad interpretation?
- Thread starter outhouse
- Start date
esmith
Veteran Member
Originally Posted by esmith
They didnt sit around contemplating if the story had a deeper meaning.
But that appears is what you are doing.
They didnt sit around contemplating if the story had a deeper meaning.
But that appears is what you are doing.
Seems you may have misunderstood me.
I mean there came a time when men "didn't sit around contemplating if the story had a deeper meaning". They took a shallow meaning and contorted their minds such that they could accept things that made no practical sense. Thus, the deeper meaning became lost. Even the Jews who claim to have oral tradition are a fractured and scattered mess of confusion and don't have the answers.
I am saying I decided nobody knew the answers and began to contemplate if there was a deeper meaning intended. And, sure enough, it's there....
esmith
Veteran Member
And just where or how did you decide that there was a deeper meaning?
I can back them and have backed them to some extent. While I am patient to an extent, if I sense someone is not open to new ideas, I don't waste much effort with them. You obviously want things to remain constrained so that your presumptions and personal bias won't get exposed, not to mention your own lack of knowledge in deciphering metaphoric texts.
ADD: Also, I might add. It is you who is derailing this thread to inject "cobbled translations" into the mix. I am saying interpretation and standing firmly upon it.
Last edited by a moderator:
As I've said, the Bible is encoded under layers of metaphor that it establishes all on its own. I don't have to invent them or impose them. They are plainly there for everyone to see if they have a decent translation of the Bible. I use the King James or Authorized Version. I'm sure others will suffice. However, I will note, the NIV has trashed a good number of keys so you won't be able to see things as I do using that translation or any others like it. The more distant you get from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic the more what I call the 'dung' factor is amplified.
esmith
Veteran Member
I have the "Jewish Study Bible"; "NIV Study Bible"; "The Five Books of Moses -The Schocken Bible Volume I" translated by Everette Fox (supposedly the best literal translation available). I enjoyed reading "The Bible and the Ancient Near East" by Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary A. Rendsburg, an up-to-date revision of a classic work that draws on the latest archaeological and linguistic research to fill in the historical realities behind the great stories of the Bible. I also have the "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English" translated by Geza Vermes. After many hours of reading and "studying" these books I find no evidence to support your conjecture that there is hidden meanings in the Bible. Yes, there are literary techniques in the stories that must be understood for one to understand the story and what it is telling. Further, as I previously stated, the Hebrew Bible was not written for today's religious preconceived ideas. It was written by and for the Israelites of the Ancient Near East. It is my conjecture that you are attempting to read into the Bible things that are not really there in order to justify what you think should be there. I find no fault on your part in this, each person has the right to have their own vision.
I am a literal descendent of the people of the Northern Kingdom and it is abundantly clear the vast majority of prophecy in that text points to this very incredibly pivotal time in earth's history.
That said, think what you want.
I already made it very clear my position is #2 and I went to some extent to explain why.
If you just wanted a poll you should have structured things as such.
Forthwith, I shall no longer present my views anywhere on these forums. I've had my fill of people like you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Most of the book is a work of fiction. The report of old age are exaggerated camp fire ramblings.
Jbug, your views are interesting and thought provoking to me. I enjoy your posts, even if I don't always agree. I see you get a lot of flack, so does everyone here if the in anyway stand firm in their position. Keep posting. Don't be chased away. If you get flack make your case and keep it moving, don't stress it.:rainbow1:
Thanks for the acknowledgment.
I don't feel the need to keep posting.
I greatly dislike fruitless discord.
I'm not ashamed to be easily chased away.
I didn't come here seeking validation.
I wasn't sure why I came here actually.
But, I sense my time here is complete.
It's time for me to move on.
Thank you for your friendship!
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes I believe so.
Im trying to find one report that said noah was interpretation error
maybe the correct answer is fiction
dmgdnooc
Active Member
It is not your view that I take issue with. It is the way that you present your view.
You say 'many' when you know there are very few.
You say 'OT' when you know it is only early Genesis.
You demand yes/no, 0/1, type answers to questions that you know, to be treated honestly, require a nuanced approach and have a range of possible answers.
You ignore the facts of contrary arguments and insist that your own unsupported assertions be accepted without question.
　
In short, you have an agenda; one that appears to be malicious because it requires you to present things in a way that even you know is false.
Thereby, you are doing a disservice to the participants of this thread and to yourself.
　
'Early Genesis is to be read as being literal but understood as being allegorical.'
'The lists of names and ages (of early Genesis) I take, most possibly, to represent Tribal Patronymic designations and the periods of that Tribe's dominance.'
Early Genesis is not literal and inerrant, nor is it fictitious or 'full of beans'; but you know that.
Last edited:
Erebus
Well-Known Member
I'm of the opinion that it's both fiction and interpretation error. Considering the age of the book, how many translations it's been through, the amount missing from it and the fact that many of the older stories would have been handed down over generations the chances of none of it being interpreted incorrectly are tiny.
Also, I do believe that many village elders/wise men/whatever you want to call them are likely to have improvised in their story telling for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they wanted to captivate an audience, perhaps they were under pressure to just say something.
Of course there's also the possibility of good old chinese whispers. One man lives to a great age and within a few generations he's lived to be a couple of centuries old.
That's my take on it anyway.
Also, I do believe that many village elders/wise men/whatever you want to call them are likely to have improvised in their story telling for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they wanted to captivate an audience, perhaps they were under pressure to just say something.
Of course there's also the possibility of good old chinese whispers. One man lives to a great age and within a few generations he's lived to be a couple of centuries old.
That's my take on it anyway.
outhouse
Atheistically
no its ment to be read allegorically, thats how one reads fiction to get a meaning out, placed there.
thats not literal in any way shape or form.
not true, Im trying to figure out if it is one or the other or a certain combination. If I knew the answer I would not post. I do know theres about 6 people in this forum that may or may not know the answer. This leeds me to believe you think its fiction
I do not present false things EVER, If i believe through research, I will post it.
I understand the prediluvian period of the OT and how it was written and it is my area of study. Im trying to get to the bottom of the facts. If you dont like the outcome, or question to bad.
why is it so hard for you to realize its a ficticious old myth from a people who had nothing that created said myth, by combining previous cultures myths and then making it to meet there own needs and language. OH i know why you and the others have your pantys in a bunch, it goes against your faith. Every piece of fiction in the OT goes against your core beliefs, it must drive you nuts the people that invented your god and all the myths surrounding him are proven to be just that. Taken myths from previous cultures. sorry if the truth hurts. You cannot change the past to make it fit your needs as a few here are trying.
the earth was not created in one day
the earth is not 6000 years old
man evolved
eve did not come from a rib
there was no flood
there was no ark
there is no proof moses existed
the sun does not revolve around the earth
a god did not make the stars in one day
man spoke many languages before the tower of babal
these are all facts, and the bible tells you to believe these lies.
by the way thats a short list of fiction
outhouse
Atheistically
thank you for a rational response. I think you hit the nail on the head.
I think they had to raise the age's of there heros to compete with the pagan religions
again showing it was never gods words writing the OT, just ancient mens imaginations
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
this is translation error if one believes. I know the account was taken from sumerian culture. I cannot verify the translation errors quoted here.
How old was Noah and Methuselah?
The oldest of the antediluvians listed in Genesis 5 was Methuselah who has become the epitome of longevity because he was reported to have lived 969 years. Noah was given an equally incredible age of 950 in Genesis 9:29. There are three serious problems with the Genesis numbers: men do not live to be nine hundred years, men do not father children when they are over a century old, and why did they wait so long to have children? All three of these problems disappear if we make two simple assumptions: the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of Genesis) has the original numbers and each of the numbers has one decimal place in modern notation. The original Genesis numbers were not written in decimal notation. Instead the numbers were recorded in an archaic, pre-cuneiform, sign-value, Sumerian number system, similar in some ways to Roman numerals.
The fantastic stories about these men living over nine hundred years and not getting around to fathering their children until they had lived a century or two, are the result of an ancient mistranslation of the original numbers. Except for Noah, each young man fathered his first son during his late teens or early twenties, just as young men do today, and they lived into their seventies or early eighties. Noah lived to be 83 years old and Methuselah lived to be 85. The river flood of 2900 BC occurred when Noah was 48 years old and he had been king for ten years.
How old was Noah and Methuselah?
The oldest of the antediluvians listed in Genesis 5 was Methuselah who has become the epitome of longevity because he was reported to have lived 969 years. Noah was given an equally incredible age of 950 in Genesis 9:29. There are three serious problems with the Genesis numbers: men do not live to be nine hundred years, men do not father children when they are over a century old, and why did they wait so long to have children? All three of these problems disappear if we make two simple assumptions: the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of Genesis) has the original numbers and each of the numbers has one decimal place in modern notation. The original Genesis numbers were not written in decimal notation. Instead the numbers were recorded in an archaic, pre-cuneiform, sign-value, Sumerian number system, similar in some ways to Roman numerals.
The fantastic stories about these men living over nine hundred years and not getting around to fathering their children until they had lived a century or two, are the result of an ancient mistranslation of the original numbers. Except for Noah, each young man fathered his first son during his late teens or early twenties, just as young men do today, and they lived into their seventies or early eighties. Noah lived to be 83 years old and Methuselah lived to be 85. The river flood of 2900 BC occurred when Noah was 48 years old and he had been king for ten years.