Question about Adam & Noah.....

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Willow 2, Jun 4, 2003.

  1. Willow 2

    Willow 2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    For those interested i have a question? When Noah was born, how long had Adam been dead?

    A. Adam was still alive.
    B. 1,921 yr's
    C. 126 yr's
    D. 824 yr's

    My pastor ask this question in a e-mail to me & others, & i have not got a clue? So please could someone help me out here....PLEASE!!!

    And i hope this was the right place to post this, cause i looked threw & this was the only place that it seem to fit in..?
     
  2. Pastor Chet

    Pastor Chet
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    the correct answer should be (a).Because there were approximately 1500 years between the creation of Adam and the flood. Noah was (we'll use estimates) about 600 years old at the flood.. subtract that from 1500 and you have 900 years.we know Adam lived 930 years.that means Adam was probably alive when Noah was born. He died when Noah was about 30 or so.
    chet
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Answer E: We just don’t know. The genealogies were never meant to be added up. There may have been a number of people/generations left out.

    Rob
     
  4. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    The answer is "C" about 126 years.

    Year Event
    0 Adam created (Gen 1:27)
    130 Seth born (Gen 5:3)
    235 Enosh born (Gen 5:6)
    325 Kenan born (Gen 5:9)
    395 Mahalalel born (Gen 5:12)
    460 Jared born (Gen 5:15)
    622 Enoch born (Gen 5:18)
    687 Mathusaleh born (Gen 5:21)
    874 Lamech born (Gen 5:25)
    930 Adam died (Gen 5:5)
    987 Enoch translated (Gen 5:23)
    1042 Seth died (Gen 5:8)
    1056 Noah born (Gen 5:28-29)

    I am sure some will disagree but I have yet to see an argument that was even remotely convincing that the Bible is wrong when it says what it says.
     
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Ahhh, it's not wrong in what it doesn't say though, and it doesn't say that Adam and Noah were contemporaries. Comparing the various geneologies on the OT and NT will demonstrate that there are some "missing" generations. There is quite a bit of wiggle room in these lists of people.
     
  6. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is NO wiggle room when the Bible says that Adam was 130 when Seth was born. (I'll give you a few months one way or the other.)

    There is NO wiggle room when the Bible says that Seth was 135 when Enosh was born.
    (And so forth)

    There is NO wiggle room when the Bible says the age of each patriarch when their son was born and how old they were when they and their sons died.

    You can do this from Adam to Abraham. You can go from Abraham to Solomon with just a little (less than a hundred years off) wiggle. After Solomon you are on your own. The Bible doesn't specify the ages or (I'll admit to the possibility of this) exact father/son geneology.
     
  7. Willow 2

    Willow 2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like that some are answering...but i hope someone will agree on the answer sooner or later.
    & i'm sure someone will agree [​IMG] So thanks for the help.....

    Willow [​IMG]
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a well known fact that genealogies often skip generations. All we need to do to verify this is look at Matthew 1
     
  9. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a widely published concept that there are a couple of apparent gaps in the geneological records from Christ back to David. This is a far different sentence than you wrote. It is not a well known fact and it isn't often. The discussion however, isn't about those ligitimate questions. It is about what the Bible says from Adam to Noah. I quoted several verses such as:

    Gen 5:3-7 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

    Adam was created at some point, so, let's call it Year 0, and he lived 130 years and had a son named Seth, and live another 800 years and died, making him 930 years old when he dies. Is there something wrong it my statement? See my previous post for other verses and years and timetable. Where is the error in my statements?
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing was wrong with it. I was simply pointing that Jewish genealogies quite often (and yes it is often) omit generations that are not considered significant. Hence "Father of" may be grandfather or greatgrandfather etc. We cannot simply add the years up to come up with a date for the age of mankind.
     
  11. WillRain

    WillRain
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^
    BUT
    These geneologies with missing generations you speak of don't provide the kind of detail we see in Genesis.

    Saying "A" lived "X" years and begat "B" is QUITE different from saying "A begat B begat C begat D"

    The first case implies that the numbers can be trusted. Otherwise, there is no reason for them to be there.
     
  12. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    We seem to be talking about two different things. I am not talking about Jewish geneologies in general. I am talking about Biblical geneologies in particular. From David to Jesus there are a couple of legitimate points of discussion (that is not often). From Adam to Abraham there are not any serious points of disagreement. If the numbers are given (and they are) then they can be added up. If the numbers aren't given (David to Jesus) then you can't add them up. My question is what is wrong with adding up the numbers that are given?
     
  13. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    The genealogies of Genesis is a place where perhaps the “plain” reading of Scripture may not be the right reading of Scripture.
    Lightfoot (1602-1675) a renowned Hebrew scholar, following the work of James Ussher, concluded that Adam was created on October 23, 4004 B.C. at 9 A.M. (45th meridian time). I'm not sure we need to go there!

    But I understand your argument that the first generations (from Adam to Noah) lists the Patriarch, his age upon the birth of his firstborn, and his age at death. It seems so clear and plain that these ages could just be added up and conclusions drawn about who was alive when others were alive. Yet I’m not ready to agree with Lightfoot and Ussher (or their methods).

    Now I hold to Biblical inerrancy and the trustworthiness of Scripture. What the Scriptures say is true…but that doesn’t guarantee that we will understand what it all means. The Westminster Confession of Faith says it quite adequately:
    The Bible is inerrant, It's our interpretations that aren’t inerrant.

    What are some clues that the genealogies shouldn’t be added up? Here are two verses among quite a few.
    Luke 3:36 adds the name of Cainan, the father of Shelach (compare Genesis 5:13-15).

    1 Chronicles 7:13 uses the word “sons” when describing her grandsons (probably translated descendants in your ‘translation’).

    These verses do not cause us to doubt scripture, Scripture is trustworthy. They do cause us to doubt if we truly understand how their culture understood a genealogical record. It surely isn’t the same way we understand it today. And that causes me to say that there is "wiggle room" in the record and the accurate date you are looking for is unknown.

    Rob
     
  14. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    (All Caps are for emphasis, not shouting)

    There is no Biblical reason (conjecture sure but, no staement of fact) to believe that Adam was created on October 23, 4004 B.C. at 9 A.M. There is a Biblical reason to believe that Adam was created. There is a Biblical reason to believe that Adam was 135 when Seth was born. There is a Biblical reason to believe that Adam lived 800 more years and died at the age of 930. The Bible says so, clearly, plainly, and without any room for reasonable conjecture. The same can be said for each person mentioned from Adam to Abraham. I am not even making an effort to debate any other time frame. My question is, what is wrong with adding THESE numbers up, are THESE numbers wrong, where is the error HERE?

    The fact that SOME things are hard to be understood doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is hard to be understood. This is easy, plain, and simple. This isn't something that leads me to believe something else, it is just a straightforward statement of fact and is either true or it is not.

    BTW, I am not looking for a DATE for creation but, if these verses are true (as I believe them to be) then it would give us at a least a reasonable time frame instead of this 6,000 to 20,000 to 4,500,000,000 years I see discussed as though either one could fit what the Bible says.
     
  15. Larry in Tennessee

    Larry in Tennessee
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where did he get that from? Adam was created in 4112 B.C. [​IMG]
     
  16. Matthew 16:24

    Matthew 16:24
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Artimaeus,
    C. 126, final answer :D
     
  17. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, what are you doing staying on topic, isn't there a rule against that. :D
     

Share This Page

Loading...