gawilson@watdaisy.UUCP (Graham Wilson) (03/29/85)
Here we go again, the "interpretation of the bible" argument... >In article <150@magic.ARPA> jdd@magic.UUCP (John DeTreville) writes: >>> >>> However, at this early period of time, the effects of sin >>> (death) were not so advanced and the human specimen was not >>> as imperfect as today. This is why the people of this era >>> lived for hundreds of years. >>> >>Well, yeah, and also because they counted in months, later mistranslated to >>years. But it seemed like longer because they were so perfect. >> >>Cheers, >>John ("Southern Baptist") DeTreville >>DEC SRC, Palo Alto > > { To which Dan Boskovich replies: } > > If this is true, then after the flood when God said that mans life span > would be 120 years, and this is really months, from that time on men > would live to be 10 years old. Gee, That means Sarah gave birth to Isaac > when she was 7 and a half. And she thought she was too old? > > Dan Come on Dan! Don't tell me that the bible is perfect (i.e. that it was translated perfectly from earlier times several thousand years ago). There is a simple experiment one can perform which clearly shows the problems involved with messages passed on to several people in turn. Take ten people (arbitrary number), and into the ear of the first, whisper a message. Each person in turn whispers the message to the next person once it has been told to them. The resulting message will bare little if any resemblance to the initial one. Now how can you expect legends and biblical writings to be translated and carried on through thousands of people, through many language changes and over thousands of years? It does seem a little far fetched if you ask me. Issac Asimov wrote a very good article on this problem (transition from months to years as the standard method of age counting). I can send you the name of the book etc if you wish (the book is at home on the bookshelf. I'm at the office...). I would be interested in your views on the bible - is it accurate? Should it be taken literally, or metaphorically? Graham Wilson University of Waterloo
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (04/02/85)
> Now how can you expect legends and biblical writings to be translated > and carried on through thousands of people, through many language > changes and over thousands of years? It does seem a little far > fetched if you ask me. > I have a simple solution. Why don't you try learning it in the original hebrew? According to my copy, the word used *is* "shanot" meaning years. Why argue about something so easily verafiable? -- ------------- Micha Berger {philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger A Fugue in One Voice
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/03/85)
>I have a simple solution. Why don't you try learning it in the original hebrew?
"Simple is not easy" Thelonius Monk