430 years after the general age Paul was referring to(10 other promises after he was 99 according to the first I count). Also Stephen had something to say about it himself.Paul is saying that the Mosaic law came after [the] 430 years.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
430 years after the general age Paul was referring to(10 other promises after he was 99 according to the first I count). Also Stephen had something to say about it himself.Paul is saying that the Mosaic law came after [the] 430 years.
Luke does not mention how old they were when they had children. So there is no contradiction.
the last thing I would resort to is the claim there is a contradiction
430 years: maybe it's like this: Paul is saying that the Mosaic law came after [the] 430 years.
I didn't think that through though.
Look the last thing I would resort to is the claim there is a contradiction.
Galatians 3:17
I was referring to verses 6-7, though this also has its own spiritual meaning.was he 136 as Stephen...claims
Oh. You didn't mention Dinah previously. Got it.
True.
Yes. I surmised he was at least 120 years old according to your calculations. Joseph was 37 when his family came to Egypt, and Joseph was only born after several years of Jacob living with his wives in Aram. So I'd say that Levi is at least 3 years older than Joseph. 37+3+80=120.
This is based on the assumption that Kohath, son of Levi, must have been part of the group that entered Egypt("133+137+80=350 =/= 430"). However if Kohath was born at least 80 years into the entrance into Egypt(based on the last year assumption for each subsequent generation) , then the sum would reach 430(though without the last year assumption Kohath could have been born even later). And there is the possibility of this in Genesis 46:15, where an extra person was said to have entered Egypt who was part of the sum but not part of the named list, allowing thus the reasoning for Kohath to have been born later, though he were listed there, since I do not necessarily see the evidence for several generations to have gone unlisted between Kohath and Amram(Numbers 16:1, Numbers 26:58, 1 Chronicles 6:38, 1 Chronicles 23:12 - four sons of Kohath). Now if there were several generations between Kohath and Amram, there would be no real reason to hold to the 210 number, however it would seem to beg the question of who Amram's brethren(Izhar, Hebron, Uzziel) actually were. Would they have all been Kohath's grandsons according to the generation of Moses' father? Seems a difficult question.
If that were so, I wouldn't have said it(Ezra 2:62, Neh 7:64).There are no 'IFS'
If that were so, I wouldn't have said it(Ezra 2:62, Neh 7:64).
according to you.Nah mate, Paul was referring to the time when God made his first promise to Abraham
I disagree here.If the last thing that you would resort to is the claim there is a contradiction, then you would have to lie to yourself.
no, I did not say that the blood line excludes someone from being a real father.which you have obviously and rightfully so, edited out, as you would be claiming that the Fathers mentioned in Genesis, which are Arpachshad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God, are not the real fathers.
I think they are.are not to be trusted.
I don't read of 136 years in there.What do you think of Acts 7: 4? Do you believe that Abraham was 75 when he left Haran to go to Canaan, or was he 136 as Stephen, who is said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit, claims?
according to you.
I think @user4578 made a very valid point in explaining that the details of the Abrahamic covenant were still subect to some minor clarification up to the point when they entered Egypt.
I disagree here.
no, I did not say that the blood line excludes someone from being a real father.
I think they are.
I don't read of 136 years in there.
Yes: this was the valid point he made: as I wrote in #48, it's this one:Fair dinkum! You think user4578 made a valid point do you, please explain the valid point that you believer the 'user' made?
No, I didn't.BTW Did you read 1 Chronicle 6: 18, and 6: 22; as I advised User to read?
whenever there is a discrepancy in the genealogies, the real father (as shown in Luke) was not the father according to the blood line in Genesis.So, whenever you find a discrepancy, the real father is different from the biological father. If there is no discrepancy between these two, they are identical. It's as simple as that in my view.And you did say in post #40 that Luke is about real fathers. While Genesis is about the bloodline. And now you state that you did not say that the blood line (In Genesis) excludes someone from being a real father. I suppose you now believe that Luke, who you said is about the real Fathers, does not exclude adopted fathers etc. So please reveal who, in Genesis, the Blood line according to you, is the real fathers, or the adopted fathers of their sons, and reveal to us also, who in the genealogy recorded in Luke, who you say is about the real fathers, is not of his adopted sons bloodline?
that's a good point. I see no contradiction there:Genesis 11: 32; Terah died at the age of 206.
Genesis 12: 4; When Abram was 75 years old, he started out from Haran, as the LORD had told him to do; and Lot went with him. Abram took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and all the wealth (Live stock) and all the slaves they had acquired in Haran, and they started out for the land of Canaan.
Abraham was born when Terah was 70, when Abraham left his father at the age of 75, Terah was then 145, and Terah died 61 years later at the age of 206. 70 + 75 = 145, 145 + 61 = 206, the age of Terah when he died.
Whereas, Stephen who is said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit, in Acts 7: 4; claims that Abraham did not move over into the land of Canaan until his father died, and Terah died when Abraham would have been 145? does this agree with, or contradict the truth as revealed in the OT.
I made a mistake. Thank you. @thomas t, corrected calculation for your attention.Joseph was 17 when he was sold by his brothers He was 30 when he was made ruler over the Egyptians, it was in the second year of the seven years drought that followed the seven years of plenty, that he was reunited with his father, even if the first year of the seven years of plenty began when he was thirty, this still makes Joseph 39 when he was reunited with his father Jacob.
Where do you get your information from, it appears that it is not from your bible.
Yes: this was the valid point he made: as I wrote in #48, it's this one:
"I think @user4578 made a very valid point in explaining that the details of the Abrahamic covenant were still subect to some minor clarification up to the point when they [Jacob and his sons] entered Egypt."
No, I didn't.
whenever there is a discrepancy in the genealogies, the real father (as shown in Luke) was not the father according to the blood line in Genesis.So, whenever you find a discrepancy, the real father is different from the biological father. If there is no discrepancy between these two, they are identical. It's as simple as that in my view.
that's a good point. I see no contradiction there:
It's either:
1. Stephen was wrong. He was filled with the Holy Spirit. But he was also human and he had to be quick to formulate his stance in that situation. Humans can always err, I think.
Or
2. since Abraham constantly moved in and out of Canaan - as he lived with the Philistines a long time and in Egypt - Stephen might have referred to God moving him out from these countries to install him in Canaan finally and for a longer time.
I think it's #2 here.
I made a mistake. Thank you. @thomas t, corrected calculation for your attention.
Both. Many people in biblical times had two or more names. Off the top of my head, compare Uzziyah and Azaryah (both the king and the priest), Meshulam and Shalum (ancestor of Ezra), Achazyah and Yehoachaz, Mattanyah and Tzidkiyahu.One could be correct, but then both could be correct, what say you
actually Bible teaches that Abraham left Canaan at another occasion, too: Genesis 21:34.The only time that Abraham moved out of the Land of Canaan was because of a severe drought in the land of Canaan, the Holy Spirit moved Abraham to take Sarai into the land of Egypt where they told everyone that she was the sister to Abram, which she was, or rather his half-sister. The King saw the beautiful one from the north and took her as his wife.
Any so-called contradictions are either in translation (Hebrew to English for example) or one's own understanding.actually Bible teaches that Abraham left Canaan at another occasion, too: Genesis 21:34.
So this is what Stephen might have referred to.
There is no need to conjure up "contradictions" in the Bible. It leads to nowhere, I think.
----------
1 Chronicles 1 is about blood line as is Genesis 11.
No reason to resort to the claim that there was a contradiction, The Anointed.