The ages of patriarchs correspond with lunar cycles.

[VladtheDestroyer]

Specifically, the begatting ages and the amount of years it takes for a new moon to occur in the next zodiacal sign at the same celestial longitude.

In Luke 4:17 Jesus enters the synagogue in Nazareth and is handed the scroll of Isaiah to read from. It was not a coincidence this particular scroll was being read on that day. The Jews followed a particular system used to determine which scrolls would be read in every synagogue on the same day. Today this is known as the Triennial Cycle https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14508-triennial-cycle
The Triennial Cycle was based around festivals and sabbaths observed by the Jews, which were to be held on particular days in regards to the lunar calendar. The reason they were able to have a such a calendar is because the cycles of the moon and indeed all of the celestial objects observable from our place in the solar system are predictable. This should be no surprise to us,

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

It should be mentioned here that lunar sabbaths were not concept held solely by the ancient Jews. Apparently the Assyrians and Babylonians observed weekly sabbath days. That other ancient cultures recognized similar sabbath days should, again be no surprise us. The Bible makes no claim that the ancient Hebrews were the first and only people to have a correct understanding of the creation event, nor of the God of the Bible and his Plan of the coming messiah. Quite the opposite in fact. Adam was no Hebrew, neither was Enoch nor Melchizedek. Neither were the Magi who came to honour Jesus, shortly after he was born. Neither was the Persian King Cyrus, whom the Lord referred to as His anointed one. Jesus himself marvelled at the faith gentiles had in him. So it's obvious that the gentiles had some sort of framework that helped them to accurately understand God and his plan our salvation. Paul even incorporated this very idea into his evangelism (Acts 17 22-24) and Peter seemed to expect that not all gentiles would have forgotten about the creation event (2 peter 3:5) Note: the point of a correct understanding would be ultimately be to lead people to Christ, thus this not an endorsement of paganism or false religions.
It should also be no surprise to us that the zodiac would have been of great importance to the Jews and it would have played a significant role in their culture. I think for Christians, this idea is often seen as controversial because zodiac is often associated with astrology. But what must be understood is that for Genesis 1:14 to be true, there is no other way. The zodiac goes hand in hand with having an ecliptic coordinate system and without this system there would have been no way for the ancients to determine celestial longitude. It is a system we still use today, though these specific constellations have apparently been referred to since close to the dawn of recorded human. God tells us that these are an inheritance given to everyone. (De 4:19) history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astrology
There is a good argument to be made (which I agree with) that the ages of the patriarchs listed in Genesis 5 represent the amount of years it would take for a new moon to occur at the same celestial location in the next zodiacal sign. https://www.academia.edu/120374289/...aeological_Zodiac_And_Its_Related_Inscription

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

I think that ancient astronomy and calendrics might have been more important than we realize. The constellations of the zodiac seem to have been known almost since the dawn of recorded human history.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

It took me quite a while before I felt I could explain the paper accurately. I tried emailing him a couple times, but I guess he is retired. I had a prior interest in the Ein-Gedi mosaic and was already familiar with some of the ideas this paper involves when I first came across it.

The author seems to go back and forth between saying the ages were copied from older scripts and then saying the ages were updated to reflect the modern astronomical knowledge of the Greeks during the time the LXX was written. I was hoping he would answer his email to clarify this but he never did. To me, this wasn't necessarily an important point because the trend in our understanding of ancient astronomy always indicates it was more advanced than what we had originally believed. Evolutionary thought tends to paint a Eurocentric picture of scientific achievement and intellect.

 

[Nick M]

I think that ancient astronomy and calendrics might have been more important than we realize. The constellations of the zodiac seem to have been known almost since the dawn of recorded human history.

I will get back to your post and read it. While constellations are mentioned in the Bible, the most direct thing is stating using stars and moon for the seasons.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

I will get back to your post and read it.

Cool. I've only recently started posting about this on a few various sites and so far it seems not too many people are interested. It's kind of niche topic, I guess.

 

[Clete]

Specifically, the begatting ages and the amount of years it takes for a new moon to occur in the next zodiacal sign at the same celestial longitude.

In Luke 4:17 Jesus enters the synagogue in Nazareth and is handed the scroll of Isaiah to read from. It was not a coincidence this particular scroll was being read on that day. The Jews followed a particular system used to determine which scrolls would be read in every synagogue on the same day. Today this is known as the Triennial Cycle https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14508-triennial-cycle
The Triennial Cycle was based around festivals and sabbaths observed by the Jews, which were to be held on particular days in regards to the lunar calendar. The reason they were able to have a such a calendar is because the cycles of the moon and indeed all of the celestial objects observable from our place in the solar system are predictable. This should be no surprise to us,

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

It should be mentioned here that lunar sabbaths were not concept held solely by the ancient Jews. Apparently the Assyrians and Babylonians observed weekly sabbath days. That other ancient cultures recognized similar sabbath days should, again be no surprise us. The Bible makes no claim that the ancient Hebrews were the first and only people to have a correct understanding of the creation event, nor of the God of the Bible and his Plan of the coming messiah. Quite the opposite in fact. Adam was no Hebrew, neither was Enoch nor Melchizedek. Neither were the Magi who came to honour Jesus, shortly after he was born. Neither was the Persian King Cyrus, whom the Lord referred to as His anointed one. Jesus himself marvelled at the faith gentiles had in him. So it's obvious that the gentiles had some sort of framework that helped them to accurately understand God and his plan our salvation. Paul even incorporated this very idea into his evangelism (Acts 17 22-24) and Peter seemed to expect that not all gentiles would have forgotten about the creation event (2 peter 3:5) Note: the point of a correct understanding would be ultimately be to lead people to Christ, thus this not an endorsement of paganism or false religions.
It should also be no surprise to us that the zodiac would have been of great importance to the Jews and it would have played a significant role in their culture. I think for Christians, this idea is often seen as controversial because zodiac is often associated with astrology. But what must be understood is that for Genesis 1:14 to be true, there is no other way. The zodiac goes hand in hand with having an ecliptic coordinate system and without this system there would have been no way for the ancients to determine celestial longitude. It is a system we still use today, though these specific constellations have apparently been referred to since close to the dawn of recorded human. God tells us that these are an inheritance given to everyone. (De 4:19) history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astrology
There is a good argument to be made (which I agree with) that the ages of the patriarchs listed in Genesis 5 represent the amount of years it would take for a new moon to occur at the same celestial location in the next zodiacal sign. https://www.academia.edu/120374289/...aeological_Zodiac_And_Its_Related_Inscription

Are you suggesting that the ages given for the patriarchs are more or less legends and that they weren't actually their ages but veiled references to lunar cycles?

 

[Clete]

I think that ancient astronomy and calendrics might have been more important than we realize. The constellations of the zodiac seem to have been known almost since the dawn of recorded human history.

The Witness of the Stars by E.W. Bullinger

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Are you suggesting that the ages given for the patriarchs are more or less legends and that they weren't actually their ages but veiled references to lunar cycles?

That's basically what I am trying to figure out. To me it seems there are 3 equally likely possibilities:

A) The ages are real and they also coincidently correspond with astronomical phenomena (lunar cycles)

B) The ages are not based on actual ages but God told Mose's to write these ages to correspond with these cycles for some reason which He didn't want everyone to know about. A secret.

C) The ages are estimates. Perhaps people back then lived for so long it was just easier to point the the sky and say "When my son was born, this thing was over there... " (something like that anyway), using astronomical phenomena to sometimes chronologize historical events instead of giving an exact day/month/year.

 

[Clete]

That's basically what I am trying to figure out. To me it seems there are 3 equally likely possibilities:

A) The ages are real and they also coincidently correspond with astronomical phenomena (lunar cycles)

B) The ages are not based on actual ages but God told Mose's to write these ages to correspond with these cycles for some reason which He didn't want everyone to know about. A secret.

C) The ages are estimates. Perhaps people back then lived for so long it was just easier to point the the sky and say "When my son was born, this thing was over there... " (something like that anyway), using astronomical phenomena to sometimes chronologize historical events instead of giving an exact day/month/year.

Looking for reasons to not take the bible to mean what it says is generally a bad policy. It leads to very bad doctrine all over place. What you can do with Genesis, you can do with Matthew.

My advice is to stick with what God's word says unless and until you have a reason that COMPELS you to do otherwise. That is, a reason that logically REQUIRES you to do otherwise.


What profit, what benefit, is there to believing that their reported ages weren't based on their actual ages? I can think of only one. To make the story more plausible to modern ears. That does NOT work. It's a trick. Undermining trust in what the bible says in one way does not bolster trust in what it says in another. Quite the contrary, in fact.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Looking for reasons to not take the bible to mean what it says is generally a bad policy. It leads to very bad doctrine all over place. What you can do with Genesis, you can do with Matthew.

My advice is to stick with what God's word says unless and until you have a reason that COMPELS you to do otherwise. That is, a reason that logically REQUIRES you to do otherwise.

Alright. I think the Bible is pretty straightforward when it comes to doctrine, actually. But I get your point.

What profit, what benefit, is there to believing that their reported ages weren't based on their actual ages? I can think of only one. To make the story more plausible to modern ears. That does NOT work. It's a trick. Undermining trust in what the bible says in one way does not bolster trust in what it says in another. Quite the contrary, in fact.

I hate to tell you this, but the most common reply I have received from other Christians is that "Adam never existed". And they will never be convinced otherwise. That ship has sadly sailed, my friend. That wasn't point of me posting this.

I am not a Bible teacher and I'm not trying to be one. But if I was Adam, I'm certain one of the first questions I would have asked God was "Hey what's all those lights up in the sky at night?" So I think it is possible that Adam could have received significant amount of astronomical knowledge from the creator Himself. That perhaps became corrupted later on.

The normal story we are told about the history of astronomy seems horribly naive to me. That people were just bored at night because they had no TV so they looked at the stars and eventually, they learned their positions in the sky could tell them when it was the right season for them to plant grain - You know what I mean.

 

[Clete]

Alright. I think the Bible is pretty straightforward when it comes to doctrine, actually. But I get your point.

I hate to tell you this, but the most common reply I have received from other Christians is that "Adam never existed". And they will never be convinced otherwise. That ship has sadly sailed, my friend.

Where are you meeting these "other Christians"? Sitting is a church pew doesn't make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car.

Regardless, the vast majority of Christians believe what they are taught to believe, as is true of most everyone else, for that matter. The Christians you meet here, on the other hand, are not the mindless lemmings that the average pew sitting Christian tends to be, and most all of us take the bible VERY seriously and believe that it means what it says.

That wasn't the point of me posting this.

Okay.

So, if you did a cost/benefit analysis of disbelieving the ages given in Genesis in favor of a belief that they are veiled references to Lunar cycles, what would that look like?

I am not a Bible teacher and I'm not trying to be one. But if I was Adam, I'm certain one of the first questions I would have asked God was "Hey what's all those lights up in the sky at night?" So I think it is possible that Adam could have received significant amount of astronomical knowledge from the creator Himself. That perhaps became corrupted later on. The normal story we are told about the history of astronomy seems horribly naive to me. That people were just bored at night because they had no TV so they looked at the stars and eventually, they learned their positions in the sky could tell them when it was the right season for them to plant grain - You know what I mean.

Yes, I do know exactly what you mean and more or less agree with the sentiment.

There is a long-standing Christian and Jewish tradition that Adam’s descendants, particularly Seth and his line, were early astronomers or preservers of astronomical knowledge. The signs of the Zodiac are extremely ancient and while there is insufficient evidence to be dogmatic about it, I personally find it plausible that the modern Zodiac is a somewhat corrupted version of something Seth (or someone very ancient if not Seth himself) came up, even perhaps via a relationship with God Himself, creating in the heavens what was essentially a pre-written gospel message.

You should look into that book I linked to by E.W. Bullinger. (There are other more modern books on almost exactly the same topic).

None of this, however, gives any reason whatever to suggest that the reported ages of those who lived prior to and just after Noah's flood were fictitious, allegorical, symbolic or otherwise something other than what they appear to be.

By the way, the full text of Bullinger's work on this subject can be found for free at the following link...

Stars Chapter One

 

[Right Divider]

I hate to tell you this, but the most common reply I have received from other Christians is that "Adam never existed".

I hate to tell you this, that means nothing.

And they will never be convinced otherwise.

And you know this how? And it matters how?

That ship has sadly sailed, my friend.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

So, if you did a cost/benefit analysis of disbelieving the ages given in Genesis in favor of a belief that they are veiled references to Lunar cycles, what would that look like?

I might not be smart enough to know how to answer that. I will try my best but I will probably need some help.

Just to reiterate, we are talking about the begatting ages in Genesis 5. These are the main focus of the paper. To me, these specific ages are not a doctrinal issue. Any discrepancies in them might be the equivalent of a spelling error in the name of a city, elsewhere in the text. And there are discrepancies in these ages, in fact, at least when comparing the LXX to the Masoretic Texts(MT). And as far as I am aware, this discrepancy seems to be mostly regarded as inconsequential. Personally, I can't even remember the last time someone even mentioned it.

Now there is one difference that comes to mind, elsewhere in texts, between the LXX and the MT that could be considered somewhat doctrinal. Psalm 22:16. I am certain most of us here (myself included) understand the LXX as being more accurate, at least as far as this particular verse is concerned. I don't know for sure how all of you resolve this discrepancy. What I do is, I look at the structure of the Psalm and see the order of it. Bulls, lions, dogs, pierced(as with a sword) and I would expect to find this order reversed later in the Psalm. God never directly states in the Bible, that this is how I should resolve this particular discrepancy! I just use my head and notice that this is just the style of writing the Hebrews liked to use. So I agree with how the NKJ uses the Septuagint here:

For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet

But the Jews today say this is wrong! They say the text should read, lions surround my hands and feet! Christians like us, take heart with this issue. Rightfully so. It's a big deal to us.

A bigger deal than how old Adam was when Seth was born. So there's that.

If I died and found out that Adam was actually only 129.6 (or whatever) solar years old when Seth was born I would not feel like I had been worshipping the wrong God my entire life. I realize there are people out there who would say "See! He was only 129.6 years old when Seth was born! You can't trust anything the Bible says!" but these people are not me.

So, to answer your question; So far to me, the cost/benefit is none. But I think it's likely that it means something. We do know that astronomical phenomena can coincide with real world events. The star of Bethlehem being one example. On the other hand, none of us are privy to every conversation Moses had with God and Jesus himself asked people to keep secrets.

It could be everything I am saying is stupid. I would like to elaborate a bit more right now, but my wife gets a bit jealous after I spend certain amount of time talking to other people instead of her. She knows that I love Jesus and I love God's word. more than anything. If I was reading the Bible right now, she wouldn't bother me. But I have to go spend time with her right now. So this is all I can post at the moment. I appreciate your guys input.

 

[Clete]

I might not be smart enough to know how to answer that. I will try my best but I will probably need some help.

Just to reiterate, we are talking about the begatting ages in Genesis 5. These are the main focus of the paper. To me, these specific ages are not a doctrinal issue. Any discrepancies in them might be the equivalent of a spelling error in the name of a city, elsewhere in the text. And there are discrepancies in these ages, in fact, at least when comparing the LXX to the Masoretic Texts(MT). And as far as I am aware, this discrepancy seems to be mostly regarded as inconsequential. Personally, I can't even remember the last time someone even mentioned it.

Now there is one difference that comes to mind, elsewhere in texts, between the LXX and the MT that could be considered somewhat doctrinal. Psalm 22:16. I am certain most of us here (myself included) understand the LXX as being more accurate, at least as far as this particular verse is concerned. I don't know for sure how all of you resolve this discrepancy. What I do is, I look at the structure of the Psalm and see the order of it. Bulls, lions, dogs, pierced(as with a sword) and I would expect to find this order reversed later in the Psalm. God never directly states in the Bible, that this is how I should resolve this particular discrepancy! I just use my head and notice that this is just the style of writing the Hebrews liked to use. So I agree with how the NKJ uses the Septuagint here:

For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet

But the Jews today say this is wrong! They say the text should read, lions surround my hands and feet! Christians like us, take heart with this issue. Rightfully so. It's a big deal to us.

A bigger deal than how old Adam was when Seth was born. So there's that.

If I died and found out that Adam was actually only 129.6 (or whatever) solar years old when Seth was born I would not feel like I had been worshipping the wrong God my entire life. I realize there are people out there who would say "See! He was only 129.6 years old when Seth was born! You can't trust anything the Bible says!" but these people are not me.

So, to answer your question; So far to me, the cost/benefit is none. But I think it's likely that it means something. We do know that astronomical phenomena can coincide with real world events. The star of Bethlehem being one example. On the other hand, none of us are privy to every conversation Moses had with God and Jesus himself asked people to keep secrets.

It could be everything I am saying is stupid. I would like to elaborate a bit more right now, but my wife gets a bit jealous after I spend certain amount of time talking to other people instead of her. She knows that I love Jesus and I love God's word. more than anything. If I was reading the Bible right now, she wouldn't bother me. But I have to go spend time with her right now. So this is all I can post at the moment. I appreciate your guys input.

Well, leaving the doctrinal and hermaneutical difficulties of this theory to the side, I don't think this theory can be made to work in any case.
The ages in Genesis 5 and 11 (e.g., Adam 130, Seth 105, etc.) are irregular numbers. That is to say that they don't follow any regular pattern where you add X number of years to a previous number or to some independent starting point. Astronomical cycles (lunar months, precession, zodiac transitions, etc.), on the other hand, are regular and mathematically consistent. This alone seems to prevent such a theory from being possible.

Further, in the paper you linked to, the following a-priori assumption is stated....

“we have added the assumption that the sages… were trying to make each patriarch the ruler of a zodiac sign”​

​

Everything that follows is dependent upon that assumption being true. The problem is that there is no objective evidence that it is true. There's nothing in the text of Genesis that even begins to suggest such a thesis.

Lastly, (there's more but I'll let this be my final point), the author has to do some selective rounding to get the ages to "corresponds well” to patriarch ages. Adam is moved up from 228 to 230, Seth is moved down from 209 to 205, etc. It's entirely inconsistent and arbitrary.

When these points are combined with the fact that there is no discernible doctrinal or practical benefit, along with the inherent hermaneutical dangers involved in finding reasons to take the scripture to mean something other than what it seems to be saying, it seems to me that you've got quite the hill to climb in regards to establishing this idea and anything other than someone arbitrarily imposing a system onto the scripture and then admiring how good a job they did at forcing it to fit.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Well, leaving the doctrinal and hermaneutical difficulties of this theory to the side, I don't think this theory can be made to work in any case.
The ages in Genesis 5 and 11 (e.g., Adam 130, Seth 105, etc.) are irregular numbers. That is to say that they don't follow any regular pattern where you add X number of years to a previous number or to some independent starting point. Astronomical cycles (lunar months, precession, zodiac transitions, etc.), on the other hand, are regular and mathematically consistent. This alone seems to prevent such a theory from being possible.

Further, in the paper you linked to, the following a-priori assumption is stated....

“we have added the assumption that the sages… were trying to make each patriarch the ruler of a zodiac sign”​

​

Everything that follows is dependent upon that assumption being true. The problem is that there is no objective evidence that it is true. There's nothing in the text of Genesis that even begins to suggest such a thesis.

Lastly, (there's more but I'll let this be my final point), the author has to do some selective rounding to get the ages to "corresponds well” to patriarch ages. Adam is moved up from 228 to 230, Seth is moved down from 209 to 205, etc. It's entirely inconsistent and arbitrary.

When these points are combined with the fact that there is no discernible doctrinal or practical benefit, along with the inherent hermaneutical dangers involved in finding reasons to take the scripture to mean something other than what it seems to be saying, it seems to me that you've got quite the hill to climb in regards to establishing this idea and anything other than someone arbitrarily imposing a system onto the scripture and then admiring how good a job they did at forcing it to fi

Do you agree that the begatting ages in Genesis 5 are not a doctrine issue? And that there are discrepancies concerning these exact ages with regards to Septuagint and the Masoretic Texts?

 

[Nick M]

But the Jews today say this is wrong! They say the text should read, lions surround my hands and feet! Christians like us, take heart with this issue. Rightfully so. It's a big deal to us.

Jews at the time of Jesus who translated it to Greek (it was a few hundred years prior but who is counting) disagree.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

there is no discernible doctrinal or practical benefit, along with the inherent hermaneutical dangers involved in finding reasons to take the scripture to mean something other than what it seems to be saying, it seems to me that you've got quite the hill to climb in regards to establishing this idea and anything other than someone arbitrarily imposing a system onto the scripture and then admiring how good a job they did at forcing it to fit.

This is same thing a postmillennialist would say to a premillennialist. Or visa versa.

Astronomical cycles (lunar months, precession, zodiac transitions, etc.),

The focus of the paper is the amount of years it would take for a new moon to occur at the same celestial longitude in the next zodiacal sign. If God had told people that the celestial bodies are meant for timekeeping, my understanding is that this would have not been an abnormal thing for the ancients to observe and keep track of. How else would they do it? How could the Hebrews have reconciled the lunar and solar calendar, so that passover doesn't end up in winter, when they have to offer their first sheif of grain? The Bible does not say how.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

@Clete You have also referred me to the Witness of the Stars by Bullinger. I have already read this and I think I am on the same page as your as far as this is concerned. But there is NOTHING in the Bible that directly supports any of this. God only tells us the meaning of 1 star in the Bible (IIRC) and there is nothing in the Bible that says the head of the egyptian sphinx represents His virgin mother. There is nothing in the Bible that even comes close to saying anything like that. But you believe it. So do I.