The Next Prophesied Event

[keraz]

It was exactly 2000 years from Adam until Abram, when he was 52; obeyed God and departed from Ur.

Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Harran Gen 12:4
Terah, his father, departed Ur some years earlier. But that was his journey, not Abram's. This playing with the dates is most unattractive.

I do not play with dates.
I simply add the time periods as given in the Bible.

Abram and Terah departed from Ur when Abram was 52. They lived in Haran for 23 years, then, after Terah died, Abram, then aged 75; went into Canaan.
The first two numbers are obtained by logical deduction, as the year that Abram obeyed God and left Ur, was exactly 2000 years since Adam was created.

These facts may be 'unattractive' to you, but they show how God is in control and His Plan for mankind will prevail.

[Fenris]

I do not play with dates.

LOL
 

The first two numbers are obtained by logical deduction, as the year that Abram obeyed God and left Ur, was exactly 2000 years since Adam was created.

Abram's journey didn't begin until he was 75.

[keraz]

Abram's journey didn't begin until he was 75.
[/quote]
You are wrong. What else are you wrong about?

Abram did not leave Ur at age 75, he was that age when he entered the Promised Land.
He, his father and his wife left Ur when Abram was 52, they stayed in Haran for 23 years; when Terah  died.
The addition of the time periods as given for the Patriarchs up until Abram obeyed God and departed from Ur, is exactly 2000 years.
Then exactly another 2000 years later Jesus was acclaimed as King, Matthew 21:5-9

We are now 1991 years since that Day.

[Fenris]

Abram did not leave Ur at age 75, he was that age when he entered the Promised Land.
He, his father and his wife left Ur when Abram was 52, they stayed in Haran for 23 years; when Terah  died.

What was Abram's age when God asked him to depart for an unknown land?

[keraz]

What was Abram's age when God asked him to depart for an unknown land?

I already told you that.  Maybe God gave him some time to sell his house, etc, but that is irrelevant; he departed from Ur at age 52.  He certainly lived in Haran for many years, until his father died, THEN when Abram was 75 he finally entered the Promised Land.
Remember too; that travel such distances often took years, esp with all Abrams baggage!

The whole point of this exercise, is to prove God's amazing timing of the pivotal events of His dealings with mankind.

[Fenris]

What was Abram's age when God asked him to depart for an unknown land?

I already told you that.  Maybe God gave him some time to sell his house, etc, but that is irrelevant; he departed from Ur at age 52. 

He departed Ur with his father at age 52. But that was his father's journey, not his own. What was the age when God called upon him? It's not 52.

[keraz]

What was Abram's age when God asked him to depart for an unknown land?

I already told you that.  Maybe God gave him some time to sell his house, etc, but that is irrelevant; he departed from Ur at age 52. 

He departed Ur with his father at age 52. But that was his father's journey, not his own. What was the age when God called upon him? It's not 52.

Terah was not the person that God called.

[agnostic]

he departed from Ur at age 52.

So what?

Abram wasn't called by God until after he moved to Haran.

Genesis 11-12 Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there. The days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." So Abram went, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.

His age when he left Ur is completely irrelevant. That's why Genesis never says anything about it. It only talks about his age when he moved to Haran. You're purposely changing the details of the story to arrive at your desired outcome, but even then the math doesn't work out because you're picking-and-choosing the numbers you use on a whim.

[keraz]

Genesis 1:27 Adam was created in 3970.5 BC subtracted back from 586 BCE, from:

Gen 5:3 Seth +130, Gen 5:6 Enoch +105, Gen 5:9 Kenan +90, Gen 5:12 Mahalalel +70, Gen 5:15 Jared +65, Gen 5:18 Enoch +162, Gen 5:21 Methuselah +65, Gen 5:25 Lamech +187, Gen 5:28 Noah+182, Gen 7:6 The Flood came when Noah was +600, Gen 11:10       Our year 2314.5 BC
 Arpachshad +2 - born to Shem after the flood. Gen 11:12 Selah +35, Gen 11:14 Heber +30, Gen 11:16 Peleg +34, Gen 11:18  Reu +30, Gen 11:20 Serug +32, Gen 11:22 Nahor +30 , Gen 11:24 Terah +29, Gen 11:26 Abram +70,
 Abram was +52 when they left Ur. Our year 1970.5 BCE   He lived in Haran for 23 years, then went to Canaan at age 75. Genesis 12:4              Total years since Adam = 2000

Then there was another 2000 years until Jesus was acclaimed as King.

Now there has been 5991 years since Adam.

[RabbiKnife]

You do know that the geneologies in Genesis (and Luke, and Matthew) are not sequential, that is, it is not a chronological father to son relationship, right?

[keraz]

You do know that the geneologies in Genesis (and Luke, and Matthew) are not sequential, that is, it is not a chronological father to son relationship, right?

The genealogy of Jesus has no relevance to  the timeline as I have presented.

They are numbers as given to us in the Bible.   Those numbers are not meaningless.
There was 3386.5 years from Adam to the conquest of Judah by Babylon, in 596 BC.
 

[agnostic]

The genealogy of Jesus has no relevance to  the timeline as I have presented.

Absolutely relevant, since it includes an extra generation between Adam and Abraham, which throws off your timeline by at least 100 years. The only reason you exclude this extra generation is because it throws off your timeline. Purposely misrepresenting what the Bible says when what it says proves your view is wrong is both completely dishonest and circular.

But it's not like a good Christian prophet completely lied about something else the Bible said in another thread and refuses to acknowledge they did so. That definitely wouldn't set a precedent that they're less than honest with how they use the Bible.

[keraz]

The genealogy of Jesus has no relevance to  the timeline as I have presented.

Absolutely relevant, since it includes an extra generation between Adam and Abraham, which throws off your timeline by at least 100 years. The only reason you exclude this extra generation is because it throws off your timeline. Purposely misrepresenting what the Bible says when what it says proves your view is wrong is both completely dishonest and circular.

But it's not like a good Christian prophet completely lied about something else the Bible said in another thread and refuses to acknowledge they did so. That definitely wouldn't set a precedent that they're less than honest with how they use the Bible.

No time periods are given in the genealogies of Jesus.
The only times are as I have shown and they do add to a very significant point for us today.
To dismiss the prospect of dramatic coming events, is yours and everyone's prerogative.

But your nonsense and rude accusation against me for calling a Jewish priest a Rabbi, shows an entrenched denial of these Biblical Truths, to your discredit.

[RabbiKnife]

Peter tells us to all to be ready to give an apologia -- a reasoned explanation -- for the hope that is within us, that is, the hope of our resurrection and eternal life through faith in Jesus.  We are to do that with gentleness and meekness.

A part of that is the "reasoned" part.  Reasoning implies an open, honest, objective (not-subjective) analysis of truth... not just our dogma, but the truth.  If, in the examination of our truth statements, we observe or learn of facts that seem to contradict our truth statements, those issues must be examined.

A cursory examination of the genealogies in Genesis 5, 11, and the Jesus genealogies in the Gospels demonstrate that there are often gaps -- sometimes, a "begat" is not to a son but a grandson, etc.  The simple truth is that no one knows when the earth was created, no one knows how long Adam and Eve were alive in the Garden before they sinned, no one believes that the "direct line patriarchy" in Genesis 5 and 11 means that the first child of the first child of the first child was ALWAYS a male, etc. 

More importantly, the point of the genealogies is not to create a chronology, but instead, to demonstrate the eventual lineage of Jesus, as seen in the Gospels.

In reality, this line of reasoning has more in line with the Book of Jasher than scripture.

It also assumes an timeline that is equal to only 6000 years, which is the purest of speculation.  While we can appreciate the effort, building a great ladder but propping it against the wrong wall is, in the end, futile.

[agnostic]

But your nonsense and rude accusation against me for calling a Jewish priest a Rabbi

Are you seriously trying to say this conversation never happened?

Joel 1:13-18 Put on sackcloth, you Rabbis and those who administer before the altar

Bad translation. The Hebrew word is "priest", not "Rabbi".

I like how he just completely ignores that the errant translation is in error.

An errant error is the truth!
What a X accusation, anyway.  You obviously haven't bothered to look up the provenance of the Revised English Bible, Oxford edition 1987.
It is a complete re-translation of all the Bible, incl the Apocrypha, from a huge selection of ancient manuscripts, like the Dead sea scrolls.
The REBible puts the text into modern English and explains the Hebrew nuances.

Learn to read Hebrew. The word is "כֹּֽהֲנִ֗ים" which means "priests". The term "Rabbi" didn't even exist in the first temple era.

The REB wasn't published until 1989, and REB Joel 1:13 says "Put on sackcloth, you priests".

In fact, when I do a Google search for the translation you provided, "Put on sackcloth, you Rabbis", literally just one single result comes up: you, on another message board. It appears to be the REB, but you purposely changed the word "priests" to "Rabbis".

As I believe that the prophesies of Joel are for us, now close to the end of this Church age, then the use of 'Rabbi' for a Jewish priest, is quite correct and valid.  The REB does, in fact say: priest.

You quoted a verse in Joel that used the word "Rabbi" instead of the word "priest." You doubled-down by calling people "s--pid" (now censored by an "X") for daring to point out this mistranslation. You insisted I was "obviously" ignorant about the "provenance" of the REB translation that used the word "Rabbi", which you claimed was published in 1987. When it was shown that the REB didn't exist until 1989 and that it used the word "priest" and not "Rabbi," you simply refused to acknowledge that you completely lied about all that, and pivoted to claiming that it was "correct and valid" to change what word the Bible used because your theology says you can change the wording of the Bible to reflect your theology.

This is a pattern of willful dishonesty.