January 26, 2014 To Centroids : "After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in _Kish_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_(Sumer)) ." Jusher, the first king after the Deluge, ruled for 1200 years, Kullassina-bel ruled for 960 years _En-tarah-ana_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En-tarah-ana) ruled for 670 years etc. until we get to the first dynasty of Uruk ( after which today's Iraq is named; viz Erech in the Bible) the first three kings ruled for 324 years, 420 years, and 1200 years however, after that, the length in office declined to 100 years or so and at the end of the list, 30 years, or 15 years, or 8 years, was typical There is much more to the Sumerian King List, but to give you an idea Before the Flood some kings ruled for as many as 43,200 years although a measly 28,800 years was more common and just prior to the Flood it was down to 18,000 years or so, Sorry if this disillusions anyone, and even more sorry if this has never be explained to you either is school or Sunday School, but the facts are what they are. Sure, Methuselah lived to age 969. I'll buy that if we can agree that Jusher ruled for 1200 years and Kullassina-bel ruled for 960 years. Do we have a deal? No-one places the first version of the earliest form of the Bible at much before 1000 BC, and even if you believe in Moses' authorship of the Torah (which, except maybe for some isolated passages I do not), at best we are talking 1250 BC or so. Tack on another century or two if you want and at most you've got 1400 BC. The oldest versions of the King List date to 2500 BC, which is a firm historical date. That is roughly 1000 years before any version of the Bible existed. Which came first? Can you guess? Your choices: (1) Methuselah (2) Jusher and Kullassina-bel Take all the time you need before answering the question. In other words, the Bible did not influence the King List, au contraire, the King List was the model for the Bible. .: if you accept the Bible literally you should also accept the King List. OR- my preference: accept both as etiologies that explain history mythically in meaningful ways for ancient peoples but neither at face value because each rests on untenable scientific premises Still, it would have been good to have been alive at the time of Kullassina-bel, if you ask me, and could look forward to a thousand year long retirement at a nice condo in Arizona. Methusabilly -------------------------------------- BR Comment: If someone is going to pontificate on OT time-lines and is ignorant of parallel Mesopotamian history he simply cannot be taken seriously. Creationist Ken Ham Says Christian Evolutionists Overlook Biblical Authority
By _Anugrah Kumar_ (http://www.christianpost.com/author/anugrah-kumar/) , Christian Post Contributor January 26, 2014|9:55 am Creation Museum CEO and President Ken Ham has written a _blog post_ (http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/01/25/christian-academics-tell ing-god-what-he-got-wrong/) , blasting a Christian academic for overlooking Biblical authority in an attempt to explain the long lifespans of people mentioned in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies. Ham, the founder of the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis, supports a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, and maintains that compromising God's Word in Genesis makes the Bible untrustworthy. To make his point, Ham cites the example of an article written by Jim Stump, a PhD in philosophy from Boston University and the Content Manager at BioLogos, a group that promotes evolutionary beliefs. Stump begins the article saying, "It is charged, people living for more than 900 years stands in conflict with BioLogos' acceptance of contemporary science… I should note that our acceptance of science does not at all imply that we think God never performs miracles. If God wanted to make Methuselah live to be 969 years old, we certainly believe that God could intervene in the natural order of things and make that happen. The question rather . . . is whether that is really the message of the text." Stump makes it sound like anyone who believes in a literal Genesis has rejected "contemporary science," contends Ham. Accepting a literal Genesis means rejecting evolutionary ideas, and not observational science, he points out. "If it were true that biblical creationists had rejected all of science, there would be no creation scientists!" Ham also criticizes Stump for claiming that the overall message of Genesis 5 and 11 overrides the need to understand the genealogies as literal history. In his article, Stump says we don't really know what it meant to the ancients to attribute these numbers to the lives of the patriarchs, suggesting it was nothing more than symbolism. "Actually, we do know what these numbers meant – they mean exactly what the text says," responds Ham. The patriarchs lived for hundreds of years because the lifespan of humans was longer shortly after the Fall, he explains. Ham goes on to ask how Stump would explain the lifespans of people like Noah or Moses. "Moses was 120 years old when he died. Now, is that just a symbolic number? When do the genealogies become trustworthy again?" Ham urges his readers not to be taken in by "such elaborate ideas, which are nothing more than fallible sinful man's attempts not to take God at His Word!" "How arrogant is finite man in thinking he can tell God what He got wrong. How sad so many Christian academics think they can put themselves above the infallible Word!" Ham concludes. A December 2013 Pew Research Center poll found that 60 percent of American adults believe that evolution is how the human species came to be, while 33 percent believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning. About 24 percent of respondents said they believe a "supreme being" guided the process of evolution, while 32 percent said that evolution is entirely due to natural processes. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
