It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lunar Calendar to be blamed for incorrect ages of biblical figures

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
the ancient Semites (Jews and Arabs and so on) used to use a Lunar Calendar.

that means if a person is listed as 900 years old in the bible, it should read as 75 years old.

900 divided by 12 is 75.

a guy could easily live to 75 and seem ancient to a lot of people who due to disease and predators and war would die at a relatively young age.


any contrarian opinions?




posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Nope, no contrary opinions here, just you should have added this to another, already existing thread on the subject, instead of starting a new thread. Especialy since this one isn't doing so well.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
www.angelfire.com... " Some critics claim that the 900 years of life mentioned in the Bible were not literal years. They claim that back then people counted each month as a year. They claim that you have to take the age given in the Bible and divide by 12 months.

This is wrong for many reasons. The Bible tells us how old the patriarchs were when their children were born. Cainan was 70 when his son was born. If you divided the age by 12, then that means he would have had a child at 5 years old. - This is impossible. " quote from link. anything to the contrary of that?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Totally agree, simple math.

Case Closed



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 




sorry. thnx you.

me am silly person.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
simple math case closed? just throw your opinion in there with no explanation? please explain.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pureevil81
 


mixup between lunar cycles (months) and years



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Never been convinced by that arguement, for a number of reasons. One, as another person said, the age of fatherhood doesn't indicate lunar years. Two, there are other cultures who had similar timelines.

My thoughts? I think it was neither a solar or lunar calendar. These excessive ages, in all cultures, are mostly from pre-cataclysmic times. (generally a flood.) I would venture, given that we have fossil records of many living things that would be...inefficient at the least in current atmospheric conditions, that the atmospheric conditions were different prior to said cataclysm. So I would guess that these ages are not solar years, but seem to consistently be much longer than lunar years, and were probably based on some other pre-cataclysmic phenomenon that disappeared after the event. I would be curious to see if there might be some way to estimate the "year" lengths and perhaps try to correlate them to a hypothetical phenomenon. hmmm.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join