Results 101 - 120 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Mt. 7: 22-23 | Matt 7:22 | biblicalman | 229226 | ||
Hi Puppytoes, The point of Matt 7.22-23 is that it is possible to make a great show of being a Christian without being one. As Jesus said Himself the final test is whether we do the will of His Father in Heaven. People can preach and prophesy in His Name, and yet not be genuine Christians because they do not have a personal experience of Him.. They can even cast out devils in His Name and not be Christians. There were many who sought to cast out devils in Jesus' day and some tried to do it in His Name. And they claimed that it had worked. And some healed in His Name (like some modern healers the healings were psychosomatic or self-induced). But Jesus' point is that none of this means anything. Doing the will of His Father is central. Without that the rest is useless. Best wishes |
||||||
102 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229223 | ||
St John May I suggest that you read 1 Corinthians 4.1-5, followed by Romans 14.10-12? At least your friend was humble and admitted that he was in no position to judge. It is a pity he did not stop at that. Having read the posts I see little speculation, but carefully argued posts based on Scripture on things that God did reveal. The dating in 2nd millennium BC might not seem important to you, but it is very important for some Christians and seekers who may be put off by things which appear to contradict secular history. It is very important evangelistically therefore to know what the Scriptures actually say. My non-Christian friends challenge these things. With regard to the use of numbers it is my view that it is one of the most important things to grasp when reading the Old Testament. It explains a lot of seeming contradictions and anomalies. And to some believers and seekers these things are important. That was why the question was originally asked. After all you do not have to read them if you do not wish to. You will note in fact that all my posts have been in response to questions. It would be exceedingly impolite and unChristian not to reply to them. |
||||||
103 | Is Ishmael the father is Islam? | Gen 21:21 | biblicalman | 229222 | ||
Hi, If you want to know the source of the Arab nations read Genesis 10.6-7. They were nations long before the time of Ishmael. Sheba and Dedan (prominent 'Arab' nations) existed long before Ishmael. Genesis 16.12 says nothing about nations. The impression given is that Ishmael would be a loner and a desert wanderer. But eventually he married an Egyptian wife and had 12 sons, thus establishing his own family tribe. In Geneis 17.20 it was promised that he would be the father of 12 princes (that is, sons who would be 'princes' like he was), and would be made a great nation (that is a tribal group of villages and encampments - Gen 25.16). But as we have seen above there were already many 'Arab' nations before him. Ishmael married an Egyptian (his mother was Egyptian) and he lived in the wilderness of Paran. Thus it is doubtful if he had contact with Arabia. Indeed between him and Arabia were those who had gathered to Esau. It is possible that homeless men and outcasts gathered to Ishmael and his sons when they fled from slavery and injustice which would explain how he became 'a great nation' (i.e. a tribe parallel to those of the sons of Jacob. See Genesis 25.12-16). While two of his sons are named Kedar and Duma, they would be named after those tribes rather than the other way round. Later we do know that Ishmaelites were connected with Midianites and Medanites in trading ventures (Genesis 37.28). Thus they are NOT connected with the major Arab nations The truth is that Muhammad, who was strongly influenced by Jews and heretical Christians, and their presentation of Scripture, 'adopted' Ishmael so as to claim the promises given to Abraham for his people. |
||||||
104 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229210 | ||
Hi Holmes, So Ephraim's granddaughter married a rich Canaanite and returned to Canaan say 200 years before the exodus, rebuilding 3 cities? As Ephraim's family would also be rich this is not surprising. But you are surely not suggesting that she returned with Moses and with her great great great great great grandson Joshua? That would be stretching credulity too far. Her return to Canaan is irrelevant for the question we are dealing with. I fail to see the connection. No doubt you will explain it a little better if you think it worth your time. It doesn't affect anything I have said. It was when Joshua returned that was important. Best wishes |
||||||
105 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229204 | ||
In Ex 12 read 'children of Israel' NOT 'children of Egypt' Too sleepy LOL. | ||||||
106 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229203 | ||
Hi Holmes, It ie when statements are made that is the crucial question. The statement in Gen 15 was made at least 500 years before the statement concerning the wilderness generation. It was made at a time of great longevity. Thus the view of a generation at that time was different. (If you look back you will find that Tim cited four recognised commentaries that agreed with me on this point:-)) ). With regard to genealogies it was a regular occurrence for only the important names to be given. But we can square Moses genealogy (four generations) with that of Joshua (eleven generations) in two ways, either by assuming a generation of 100 years for Moses, and 40 years for Joshua (Moses' family were long-lived), or by recognising that in Moses' genealogy only the important names were given. In the case of Paul's statement he was of course citing the four hundred and thirty years mentioned in Exodus 12.40. 'Now the sojourning of the children of Egypt who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years'. Taken naturally, that is a clear statement that the 430 years applies to the time of sojourning in Egypt, thus confirming what we have said about Gen 15. You will notice that Paul speaks of the period from the CONFIRMING (not the giving) of the covenant to the giving of the Law. The covenant was given to Abraham and confirmed continually to Isaac and Jacob. Thus the period of 430 years is from Jacob to Moses (which is the period in Egypt per Exodus 12.40). Paul was not giving a chronological table of dates. He was indicating that Scripture made clear that the Sinai covenant came at least 430 years after the confirming of the Abrahamic covenant because that was the length of time that they were in Egypt. Of course the Israelite were sojourners in Egypt. They never saw it as their home country. Joseph makes clear that even he expected them to return to the land of promise (Exod 50.24-25). It does not necessarily say that they would be oppressed for four hundred years, only that they would be in Egypt for four hundred years and at some stage be oppressed. God's people were sojourners in both Canaan and Egypt. But it was the time of their sojourning in Egypt that is stated twice to be 400 years. Why try to force a meaning on verses, when they are perfectly clear and reconcile without difficulty? Best wishes |
||||||
107 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229196 | ||
Hi Doc, Well it is true that we all have axe's to grind, you as well as me. And that is why it is important that we consider a wide range of views. LOL I have never suggested that there were people who could use numeracy and not read. Numeracy was a highly skilled art unlikely for those who could not read. Although of course as writing grew out of the original use of numbers in ancient business documents you may have a point in the initial stages. In both the UK and the US today there are people who cannot read and write. And that in spite of intense efforts to make everyone literate. And the standard of numeracy for many is very low (you would probably be surprised to know how low, even after years of schooling). So why should it be surprising that in a land of farmers, who never went to school, and who worked hard from daybreak to nightfall trying to extract a living out of their small plots of land, and their few sheep and goats, and had no books to read or need to send letters, literacy should be at a very low level? It would be surprising if it was otherwise. Of course, there were always those who could read and write to some extent (especially among the relativey wealthy), and there were the comparatively few who were 'scholars', especially among the leading priests, but they were almost certainly in the minority. To you the word of God is written text, but to the ancients it was memorised text. It is true that copies of the Scriptures were available in the Temple, but comparatively few had access to them. And they were not easy to read. And copying was an arduous task, and writing materials very expensive. There would not be many copies outside the Temple, especially before the time of David. The ancients had retentive memories. As the Law was read out to them at the feasts (Deut 31.11-13; etc), it would not be long before they could repeat it word for word, especially as their fathers would have taught them it. And they would then repeat it to their children, as the Scriptures told them to do. Note that Moses was told to write the song and 'put it in their mouths' (not on their tablets). So Moses agreed with me. You may say, 'they were told to write it on their gates and on their doorposts' (Deut 6.9). But they would call in the signwriter to do that. Yes, they would repeat the Shema every day, but they would not read it. Few would have any written material. They knew it by heart. Consider how Muslims today consider knowing the Quran by heart (even though they do not understand it) to be something to be earnestly sought after. I am afraid I do not look on modern Rabbis as authorities on ancient history. Like most they look back from a biased viewpoint. Reading and numeracy is so second nature to us that we find it difficult to conceive of a world where it was limited. But I am even now involved in teaching my granddaughters to count, and it is an arduous business, even with all the numeracy games available. Do you think the poor among the ancients had time to spare for such activity? What use would it be to them? There were far better things to spend their limited time on. Best wishes |
||||||
108 | I don't understand why Jesus told the le | Matt 8:4 | biblicalman | 229192 | ||
Hi Carol, As Brad has rightly said, one reason was so that the people would not be taken up with the wrong thing. Jesus did not want to be seen as a miracle worker. He wanted people to concentrate on what He said. But I think we can safely say that there was also another reason. The Jews were expecting a Messiah. And the most popular view about the Messiah was that he would come performing miracles, would rouse up the people and arm them and would then defeat the Romans and conquer the world. Jesus was always aware of the danger of this (see John 6.15). That is why He never openly claimed to be the Messiah (except among the Samaritans who saw things differently - John 4.25-26). It would in fact have been the guaranteed way to get arrested by the Romans. Thus while He wanted people to get excited about His message, He did not want to build up a reputation as a wonder-worker and arouse people's Messianic expectations. However, when He was in Greek Decapolis, which was not Jewish territory, He had no such inhibitions. There He had in mind the future preaching of the Gospel. So there he tells a man who has been healed to let all know (Mark 5.19). There was no danger of a Messianic rising there. Best wishes. |
||||||
109 | the farher,son,holy spirit? | 1 Tim 6:16 | biblicalman | 229191 | ||
Hi, The first thing that we must all remember is that when we are speaking of God we should do so in awed tones. We are speaking of the Almighty God, not some interesting debating topic. 'God is in Heaven, and we are on the earth, therefore let our words be few' (Eccles 5.2). The Triune God is Spirit (John 4.24). Thus He is not definable in human terms at all. We can only approach Him because when He created us, He created us body, soul and spirit (1 Thess 5.23) That is what is meant by being 'created in the image of God' (Gen 1.27). But we cannot understand our own spirits,nor can we scientifically examine them. How then can we expect to understand God? Throughout the Old Testament God revealed Himself in many and varied ways in what we call theophanies (e.g. in Isaiah 6.1-7). But those were physical theophanies, revealing a little about His glory, but not really a display of what God is truly like. He is the One Whom no man has seen or can see (1 Tim 6.16), dwelling in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6.16). We know that God is in threeness because that is how He has revealed Himself to us. He is the Father, He is the Son Who became man for us, He is the Holy Spirit. And these three are each personal and they inter-communicate. And yet they are not three individuals. Indeed I hesitate to speak of three 'persons' because in our experience 'persons' are individuals. In that sense God is not three persons. But within the Godhead are personal, intercommunicating relationships. The Father communicates with the Son, the Son communicates with the Father. In that sense we can speak of persons. At His baptism the Father spoke to the Son, and sent His Holy Spirit into the Son. There we see three distinctions within God. And yet they always act as One. We may reverently say that there had to be such distinctions within God because He is complete in Himself. For God to be love, there had to be One Who could love, and One Who could be loved. The idea of an isolated and alone God with no one to communicate with (like Allah) would leave God lacking in something essential. But that is as far as we can or should seek to go. In the end we must accept God's revelation of Himself. Best wishes |
||||||
110 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229181 | ||
Thanks Tim that's very useful. Best wishes |
||||||
111 | Did Jesus exist? No writings at His time | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229180 | ||
Hi Welcome to the forum, You can always find scholars who will support any outlandish position. You must remember that many scholars are militant atheists. But there are very few scholars who deny the actual existence of Jesus (even atheistic ones) for very good reasons. If you get rid of Jesus you then have to explain the source of the greatest moral teaching that the world has ever known, a teaching admired by men of all religions, and who it was who totally exposed the weaknesses of the teaching of the scribes in the way that we find in the Gospels. These are facts because we can still read and appreciate them today. You have to explain the source of some of the most beautiful parables known to man. You have to explain who it was who gave answers to questions that previously no one had been able to answer. And when four reliable men testify as to who it was, you have to acknowledge that they must be right. They were not clever enough to have invented it No one of the day ever denied the historicity of the man spoken of in the Gospels, not even the Rabbis after the fall of Jerusalem. Furthermore your date of 'forty years' after the death of Jesus as the date for the Gospels is probably an exaggerated one. There are good grounds for thinking that they were written earlier. And certainly we know that Paul's letters were written earlier, and that he testified to Jesus within ten years of His death. It is not really surprising that books were not written immediately. The Apostles and their followers were busy reaching the world for Christ, and books were difficult to write with the material available, and would require long abstinence from active service. And then they had to be copied individually, an arduous task, and even then they would reach few hands (they were very expensive). But the living voice could go anywhere and immediately be heard by many, and could be recognised to be that of an eyewitness. The Gospels were written when the large churches looked for people who could write down what was known about Jesus, much of which had been memorised as men had listened to the Apostles. Matthew and John had been there, and we should remember that Matthew was used to recording things in writing and had no doubt done so while listening to Jesus. Mark wrote down what he had learned fom Peter. Luke had every opportunity to consult eyewitesses especially during the years he spent in Palestine with Paul. So the existence of Jesus is not really in doubt. If you are feeling shaken, read the Gospels. And ask yourself, was this the One Who was coming as prophesied by the Old Testament, or should we look for another? And my advice is to remember that anyone can wrte what they like in wikipedia. What it says is only as reliable as the person who wrote it. And you do not know who that was. |
||||||
112 | god's mercy why is there hell | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 229179 | ||
Hi again. Hell was not prepared for man. It was prepared for the Devil and his angels, the demon world (Matt 25.41). Unredeemed man participates in it because he has taken sides with the Devil. God is not willing that any should perish. He wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3.9). It is against His urgent entreaties that men opt to go to Hell. He even went to a cross in order to redeem us from sin. But men refuse to submit to God. They refuse to accept the awfulness of their condition as sinners and as evil (Luke 11.13). They refuse treatment. What would you say of a man with a highly contagious disease who deliberately went into a children's nursery and passed his deadly disease on to the children? And yet this is what we as sinners do all the time. We pass our sin on to our children, not only by birth, but by our bad example. Thus God has to keep heaven free from sin, and there is only one way to do that, and that is by excluding untreated sinners. You must not, however, see Hell simply as a place of deliberate torture. There are no toasting forks in Hell. It is a place of outer darkness, exclusion from the light which, if they ever experienced it, would in itself in their sinful condition be extreme torture.It is a place of loss. It is a place of burning remorse. But even there some are 'beaten with many stripes' and others are 'beaten with few stripes' (Luke 12.47-48). Thus God behaves justly in all His dealings. I am not sure why dying in the Holocaust should entitle people to special treatment. It was an awful fate. But men through the centuries have suffered awful fates. It is the consequence of man's inhumanity to man. Like all of us they will be judged on the basis of whether they sought treatment from the Great Physician, our Lord Jesus Christ. Best wishes |
||||||
113 | jesus...2year old-30.where was he? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229178 | ||
Hi, Welcome to the forum We know that as an infant He was taken to Egypt by His family and remained there for some time. Later He returned with them to Nazareth. We do know what is important in Jesus childhood, that He 'grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God was upon Him' (Luke 2.40), and that 'He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man' (Luke 2.52). We also know that when He was twelve He demonstrated His knowledge of the Scriptures and ability to ask searching questions even from the great Scribes (Luke 2.42-50). And also that, when the other children were enjoying a riotous holiday at the Feast, He saw the Temple as the place for Him to be, interesting Himself in 'the things of His Father'. But the Gospels were not 'a life-story of Jesus'. They were a presentation of Jesus, revealing Who He was and what He had come to do. Best wishes |
||||||
114 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229174 | ||
Hi Doc, My statements with respect to counting were not based on the views of higher critical scholars, but on the researches of scholars into the use of numbers without any specific reference to the Bible. They had no axe to gind. As I have pointed out, 'modern' tribes who had not been brought into contact with 'civilisation' were regularly found not to be able to count, usually beyond three or four, although very occasionally up to twenty. It was simply not 'natural'. They not only had no use for numbers but in some cases even resisted the attempt to teach them numeracy. A recent researcher, speaking of Mediaeval England stated 'By this time schools were reduced to little or no arithmetic, it is doubtful whether few knew more than basic counting and finger reckoning.' This the whole of Mediaeval England. And they would not have been seen as 'primitive' (unless you wanted a dagger in your throat:-)) ). Actually many men in ancient days were quite literate and yet unable to count beyond twenty. Numbering was left to the experts. I have at no stage said that no Israelite could count. No doubt Israel also had numerate scribes (as Scripture suggests). But they would be specialists. It is probable that Eliezer, Abraham's steward, was numerate. Indeed Abraham himself may well have been, for he came from Ur of the Chaldees, which was a centre for ancient mathematics, and he was the equivalent of royalty, although whether he went to school in Ur ia another question. As semi-nomads they probably lived on the periphery.(But even the Sumerians were hindered because no one had come up with the concept of a 'zero, nought'. That concept was not invented until the 6th century BC). We certainly know that a king of Egypt after the time of Abraham was unable to calculate. For it was said that when he went into the underworld he was challenged as to his ability in numeracy in order to enter it (thereby proving himself to be royalty) and was baffled, only to be saved because he remembered a verse of poetry which contained numeracy. He was consequently looked on by the Egyptians as 'a great magician', demonstrating the awe in which numeracy was held. It is quite possible that Samuel learned to count beyond 20. But he was hardly the average Israelite. He ruled Israel, and was a scholar besides. However, I cannot see why a man being a prophet of God should necessitate advanced numeracy. Amos was a herdsman. To us numeracy is second nature. We are taught it from our earliest years. The average Israelite had no schooling, was probably not literate (although of course some were to a limited level. But we must remember that the average Israelite before the exile had no reading material), and had no real need for numeracy beyond a limited level. Ancient peoples had managed without it for thousands of years. Of course once money was invented in around 6th century BC numeracy would increase to a limited extent among those who used money. It would at last become more useful. It was, however, the Greeks who turned mathematics into an art, and even a religion (but not of course to the average Greek). Best wishes |
||||||
115 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229166 | ||
Hi Searcher, You make a good point when you stress that Isaac was born when Abraham was one hundred. However we also have to take into account the previous longevity of the patriarchs. To us if someone lives to 100 we are amazed. To them it was second nature. Seeing 40 as signifying 'a generation' would not of course mean that everyone was born at 40. It was an average, and quite possibly based on the period God allotted for the passing of the wilderness generation (Numbers 14.33), who would die out one by one. The actual real length of a generation in most cases was probably around 25. It is interestimg how often 40 occurs. It was the stated age at which the patriarchs took wives (Isaac - Gen 25.20; Esau - Gen 26.34). It was the stated age when Caleb was sent to spy out the land (Josh 14.7). It was regularly the length of the period of rest in Judges (Judges 3.11; 5.31; 8.28). It was the stated period of Philistine oppression (Judges 13.1). Eli judged Israel for 'forty years' (1 Sam 4.18). The aim in these cases may well have been to indicate 'a generation'. Ishbosheth was forty years old when he began to reign (2 Sam 2.10). David reigned for 'forty years' (2 Sam 5.4; 2.11). It was 'after 40 years' that Absalom decided to rebel (2 Sam 15.7). Solomon reigned in Jerusalem for 'forty years' (1 Kings 11.42). All this suggests that at this time 'forty' was a round figure, possibly indicating a generation. Best wishes |
||||||
116 | King lost mind grazed with cattle | Dan 4:31 | biblicalman | 229156 | ||
Hi sdlaney, Welcome to the forum. The King was Nebuchadnezzar. The account is found in Daniel 4. It is a warning against pride. Best wishes |
||||||
117 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229152 | ||
Hi Doc, I was not of course speaking of Moses. He is hardly an example of the average Israelite, although I should point out that the Egyptians did not advance in complicated mathematics like the Sumerians and Old Babylonians did. And even their mathematics deteriorated after 1800 BC. Egyptian hieroglyphs were not helpful in enabling advanced calculation. The Egyptian mathematics largely concentrated on practical measurement. But I presume you are not suggesting that Moses set up schools in the wilderness to teach mathematics? They had enough problems finding water. The people were troublesome enough without that. But there is a huge gulf between a relatively few expert Egyptian builders, and certain Sumerian mathematics experts, and a nation like Israel where, before the time of David's court there was ittle need for mathematics. Of course if you have in mind the 'wise men' at David's court no doubt SOME of them could use mathematics reasonably proficiently. But they would be the exceptions. There were very few schools, and little opportunity for the ordinary man to go to school. Nor was counting needed. The shepherd and herdsman knew each of his cattle by name, and trading was carried out using tally sticks and stones in order to indicate quantity. These were tried and trusted methods which had been in use well before numbering began (around 3500 BC). Before that no one could count, however sophisticated. I would not take too much notice of Josephus if I were you. He is reasonably reliable for ths history of his time (although he tended to exaggerate) but he was not reliable for past history. And he was trying to impress the Romans. Furthermore he lived 1900 years after Abraham. It would be like me trying to say what happened in the 2nd century AD without having any records to go by. Meaningless. In fact his statement is ridiculous. What possible use would Abraham have had for advanced mathematics and primitive physics? His interests were trading, herding, and farming. Have you noticed how in recording the statistics of Saul the Bible writer used a non-numerical system? 'Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned two years in Jerusalem'. Now what does that mean? It means that he began to reign in the first stage of his life (below twenty) and continued to reign into the second stage of his life, but died before he reached the third stage (possibly 60). There was clearly no recorder at Saul's court!! Many of the number problems in the Old Testament are best explained by the fact that numbers were used adjectivally. And number words had other meanings. Thus the word for 1000 (eleph) could also mean a clan, or a fairly large military unit, or if repointed a military captain. Thus two eleph could mean two clans, or two military units without any reference to numbers. 40 eleph could mean forty military units, and often did (even if we do incorrectly translate it as 40,000). You really cannot compare the average Israelite with high ranking Babylonian priests, and advanced Egyptian thinkers who had nthing better to do with their time. Of course Israel did eventually develop an intellectual elite. But that is what they were an elite. The nearest comparison we can make with the Israelites are modern tribes untouched by by 'civilisation'. And without exception they have been found to be unable to count beyond twenty. Most could not count beyond three. And yet many were highly intelligent and engaged in shepherding, farming and trading without any need to do so. Before you criticise further I suggest you read some reliable books on the history of mathematics by scholars who have genuinely researched the subject and have no axe to grind. Best wishes |
||||||
118 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229141 | ||
Hi Searcher, Because the four generations of Genesis 15 occur over 400 years, thus indicating that a generation was seen as 100 years (it was in the days of longevity). The actual genealogy of Joshua is given in Chronicles which was 11 generations inclusive from Jospeh to Joshua. Over 400 years that is 40 years to a generation. By the way we must beware of reading back into the ancients our very mathematical modern outlook. The ancients did not on the whole cope with mathematical ideas very well. It is questionable how many of them could count above, say, 20. (I have done a deatailed study into the use of numbers through history). Best wishes |
||||||
119 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229140 | ||
Hi Holmes, I don't remember mentioning Passover? You must have have misread what I said. It was in the days of Abraham (around 1900 BC - Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ur of the Chaldees had not been yet destroyed, and both were destroyed around 1900 BC)) that a generation was one hundred years, while the forty year generations of the days of the Exodus were at least 500 years later, even if you take the early date for the Exodus. I fail to see where I am misquoting Scripture. It says 'strangers in a land (singular) which is not theirs where they would serve them and would be afflicted for four hundred years, and also THAT NATION whom they serve will I judge, and afterward they will come out with great substance '. Clearly one nation was in mind. And besides they were not afflicted in Canaan, nor did they serve the Canaanits. The family tribe of the patriarchs was too powerful (Abraham had 318 fighting men born in his house). It can thus only refer to Egypt. So the Bible used 100 years as a generation in 1900 BC and 40 years at least 4-500 years later. How is that the same time period? Well if Moses' genealogy is complete how then do you explain the genealogy of Joshua which clearly goes over 10 generations from Ephraim to Joshua? I have based my ideas on stated Biblical facts, not on my own unsubstantiated theories. Best wishes. |
||||||
120 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229136 | ||
Hi Prov, Welcome to the Forum. It is not easy to answer your question because the concept changed over the centuries. Thus in Genesis 15 a generation was 100 years. We know this because they would be strangers in the land of Egypt for 400 years, and would return in the fourth generation (Gen 15.13, 16). But forty years was the period in which the wilderness generation would be wiped out, which suggests that by then a generation was seen as forty years. The genealogy of Joshua confirms this for it went as follows (1 Chron 7.22-27): Joseph, Ephraim, Beriah, Rephah, Resheph (Telah), Tahan, Ladan, Ammihud, Elishama, Nun, Joshua. So from Joseph to Joshua there were 11 generations inclusive. At 40 years per generation that would give us 400 years, agreeing with Genesis 15. This would serve to confirm that a generation came to be seen as 40 years. This idea was the used to indicate periods of time, as reference was made of 'to a thousand generations' (e.g. Deut 7.9), which was not of course literal but indicated a long period of time. Moses and Aaron's genealogy was clearly foreshortened giving tribal patriarch (Levi), head of sub-tribe (Kohath), head of clan (Amram), head of family (Aaron). Best wishes. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [19] >> |