Depart Out • Harold Camping • End of the world • church age • Family Radio • View topic - The Camping friend Date-Setters Massacre The Biblical Calendar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 1378

LAMBSFURY:

And what about these points? Why include ages only for this line? And why not using the colloquial qara shem?

Brad wrote

With all all of the information in the Bible about the generations from Levi to Moses, is it not striking that not once is qara shem ever used in any of the relationships?

And that we are given time information only for Levi-Kohath-Amram-Aaron/Moses in Exodus 6?

Joined: 27 Dec 2007 Posts: 792

didymus wrote

LAMBSFURY:

And what about these points? Why include ages only for this line? And why not using the colloquial qara shem?

Brad wrote

With all all of the information in the Bible about the generations from Levi to Moses, is it not striking that not once is qara shem ever used in any of the relationships?

And that we are given time information only for Levi-Kohath-Amram-Aaron/Moses in Exodus 6?

In Genesis 5 and 11, Mr Camping was forced to admit that if a father named a son using the phrase "called his name", then of course that son could not have been born the year the father died, because the father was dead can could not name his son.

However the LACK of this phrase "called his name", does not proved in any way that the person was born the year his ancestor died.

THERE ARE MANY PLACES IN THE BIBLE WHICH USE THE WORD BEGAT, AND LACK THE TERM "CALLED HIS NAME", BUT THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP IN VIEW. IS THIS CLEAR?

Ruth 4:22 And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.

There is no where in the Bible, that I have found, that says that Jesse used the term "called his name", when referring to David, and the term begat is used. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT DAVID WAS BORN THE YEAR JESSE DIED, AND WE ALL KNOW FULL WELL, THAT JESSE WAS ALIVE WHEN DAVID WAS PICKED BY SAMUEL TO BE THE NEXT KING.

So in Genesis 5 and 11, the lack of "called his name" does not prove the next person was born the year the previous person died.

The language is all identical in Genesis 5 and 11, so the normal method of interpretatioin is to handle all of the verses in the same manner. And each person was said to live AFTER their son or grandson, the given amount of years, NOT AFTER that person's earlier ancestor.

Again, the idea of one person dying, and people searching for a descendant born some time that same year to be a "calendar Patriarch" is NOT found in the Bible. It is a theory that can not be proven. BUT IN FACT, GENESIS 46 (Kohath alive and entering Egypt) , AND NUMBERS 26 (Amram immediate father of Moses) DISPROVE THIS THEORY.

THEREFORE, GENESIS 5 AND 11 STANDS JUST AS IT PLAINLY READS, AND THE EARTH IS APPROXIMATELY 6000 YEARS OLD, IF WE TRUST THE BIBLE TO GIVE US THE AGE OF THE EARTH.

*** PLEASE DO A "GOOGLE SEARCH" ON "BIBLE TIMELINE" AND YOU WILL SEE THAT EVERYONE ELSE THAN HAROLD CAMPING, WHO TRUSTS THE BIBLE TO GIVE THE AGE OF THE EARTH, BELIEVE THE EARTH IS ABOUT 6000 YEARS OLD. THEY ALL MAY DISAGREE ON POINTS ALONG THE WAY, BUT ALL AGREE THAT GENESIS 5 AND 11, IS TO BE TAKEN PLAINLY AND LITERALLY AS IT IS WRITTEN, JUST AS GENESIS 1, 2, IS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY AND PLAINLY AS IT IS WRITTEN. ******

Therefore there is NO UNBIBLICAL CALENDAR OF HERESY, NO 1994, NO 2011, PERIOD!!!!!!

ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS WAIT UNTIL, MAY 22, 2011, AND THEN OCT 22, 2011, AND WE WILL KNOW THAT HAROLD CAMPING IS A FALSE PROPHET AGAIN.

Jim B.
jimbbbbb@gmail.com

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 1378

JimB wrote

However the LACK of this phrase "called his name", does not proved in any way that the person was born the year his ancestor died.

JimB: This is correct. I was not making any claim to the contrary but simply wanted to get LF's response to those two points raised by Brad.

HC shows that every case in which that exact phrase is used in Gen 5 & 11 is an immediate parent-child relationship. I've gone over this material in minute detail and have found that it is also the case that there are only two cases in the entire Bible (very interesting cases, in fact) where the same exact Hebrew construction of the phrase (as used in Gen 5 & 11) is also used but do not indicate immediate father-son relationship. But this does not in any way allow us to assume that the lack of it requires the phrase; such would be an argument 'modus tollens' which is a very common logical fallacy.

HC makes the very strong assertion in "Adam When?" that lack of the use of the phrase should be taken as warrant for inferring that there is not an immediate father-son relationship. While this is not fallacious I think it goes somewhat beyond the support of th evidence.

It still is strange that the ages were given only for that particular line through Levi to Moses. And if God really wanted to help clear up the matter of the 430 years he "might have" used 'qara shem' but he did not, which is also (at least mildly) curious. I personally don't get the impression that he wanted to provide a clear and logical proof of the duration of the residency or of the calendar. As I've been saying recently, there simply is no proof of either; at least none that has been adduced on this forum in the time I've been following it.