Noah's Ark

[Tivo32]

What about Methuselah & Lamech? According to biblical geneaology. They both died years after the flood.

I just did a very quick look (emphasis on very quick) and it looks like Lamech is assumed to have died a few years prior to the flood and Methuselah died the same year as the flood. There is some belief that Methuselah's name may have been a prophecy for the coming of the flood.

[shortking98]

What about Methuselah & Lamech? According to biblical geneaology. They both died years after the flood.

Per genesis 5, Lamech lived 595 years after he had Noah and Methusaleh lived 782 years after he had Lamech. Noah was born when Lamech was 182 years old, meaning that Methusaleh lived 600 years after the birth of Noah. In genesis 7, Noah is 600 years old at the time of the flood so the math works as Methusaleh would have died in the year of the flood and Lamech 5 years prior.

[shrewsbury]

shortking,

never said peter did not have access to anything, i said i did not know what he studied and neither does anyone else, could have been a better more complete version or the same thing we have now, i do not know.

from what i know the dead sea scrolls do contain some of genesis but no complete version

and just to add, peter more than likely did not write anything in the new testament, could have been his understudy. some say the understudy wrote it at peters request, some say he wrote them, and others say, neither wrote them.

peter was a jew and i am sure knew genesis quite well, but i would bet jesus never explained the story of noah to him, so who knows?

again, i could be flat out wrong, but would need more proof to think either way.

[shortking98]

In Luke 17:26/Matthew 24:37 Jesus refers to the "days of Noah" so I think it would be reasonable to assume that the listeners were familiar with Noah.

Also, my apologies for misinterpreting what you were saying regarding the scriptures Peter was using.

[habsheaven]

Per genesis 5, Lamech lived 595 years after he had Noah and Methusaleh lived 782 years after he had Lamech. Noah was born when Lamech was 182 years old, meaning that Methusaleh lived 600 years after the birth of Noah. In genesis 7, Noah is 600 years old at the time of the flood so the math works as Methusaleh would have died in the year of the flood and Lamech 5 years prior.

Yes, I see that now. I misread the flood date as 1651 not 1657. Curious how Arphaxad outlived his great-grandson; his great, great-grandson; his great, great, great-grandson; and even his great, great, great, great-grandson. Can only imagine the conversations at the dinner table when your descendants keep dropping like flies.

[Tivo32]

Yes, I see that now. I misread the flood date as 1651 not 1657. Curious how Arphaxad outlived his great-grandson; his great, great-grandson; his great, great, great-grandson; and even his great, great, great, great-grandson. Can only imagine the conversations at the dinner table when your descendants keep dropping like flies.

I imagine it'd be a tad depressing. Or awesome if you preferred quieter holiday meals. ;)

[shrewsbury]

shortking, being familiar with noah and having jesus explain it to you are two different things

[shortking98]

Shrewsbury - I think we have differing views on how to read scripture and that is the real root of our disagreement. I prefer to look at scripture as a whole to make my conclusions while you seem a lot more skeptical of OT passages in general such as the context chapters around Genesis 7 in this case. I'm not going to say you shouldn't have that opinion or anything like that, I just think that is where our difference of opinion stems from.

[shrewsbury]

shortking, that is why we are here, we have opinions, and i like to here everyones, including yours, heck you may say something that helps me change my mind for the better.

i would be bold enough to say, you seem to be thinking i am taking stuff out of context, when in fact, i would say you are stringing things together for the sake of trying to make sense out of it.

one example would be trying to date anything in the OT, because if you do this, you have 3 choices. you will either believe the earth is 6000 years old, realize something is missing somewhere, or think it is all fake.
i personally go with the something is missing somewhere.

and since we are on the subject of how we veiw things, what is your take on the Nag Hammadi library?

and please don't veiw me as saying i am right and you are wrong, if we disagree it very well could be I am wrong, just need to figure out why

[theonedru]

What about the argument that the flood was a local rather than a global phenomenon. It would make more sense to the validity of the story