How many Old Testamanet new Years are there?

[DiscussingTheTopic]

So,

The month that contains Passover is the new year

"This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year.
Exoudus 12:2 NIV

In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day
Exodus 12:18 NIV

So why do people claim Rosh Hashanah is the new year?

Some Jewish people told me there are 4 new years, but only two Rosh Hashanah and Passover are in the Bible.

They said Rosh Hashanah is the new year for counting years, but Passover is the new year for counting months. (Although the new year technically starts a few days before passover.)

I asked them if the Bible actually says Rosh Hashanah is the new year and they could not so me where, it says it is the new year.

Does anyone know the answer to this.

I have noticed that orthodox "jews" actually add a lot of rules that are not in the Old Testament and subtract a lot of rules that are. I am wondering if this is another such a case.

 

[Seth]

I was curious why this is the year 5771, I asked the Jew today who did our service, and he said it is from creation, but that it's not a literal number, since time in garden is indeterminate. Anyone know of a different answer, of where the 5771 is counting from?

 

[Anonymous]

Why is time in the garden indeterminate? Adam was 135 when Seth (the other one) was born.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I was curious why this is the year 5771, I asked the Jew today who did our service, and he said it is from creation, but that it's not a literal number, since time in garden is indeterminate. Anyone know of a different answer, of where the 5771 is counting from?

Probably he does not believe the six days (in Genesis 1) were actually six days. And that perhaps the earth existed for more than (five or six) days before Adam was created.

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
Genesis 5:3 NIV

130 years + 6 days = 130 years + 6 days

130 years + Metaphor =

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I asked the Jew today who did our service

Do you go to a Synagogue with "Jews" who deny that Jesus is a prophet and messiah and deny that Jesus existed before Abraham? And who say that it is a sin to worship Jesus?

Or are these "Messianic Jews"/Christian Jews

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

So my main question is are there actually other new years than the first day of the month which contains passover in the Bible directly mentioned as New Years or is that another addition (that does not come from scripture) from "Jewish" people.

Would they be directly disobeying scripture by choosing the wrong day as the first day of there year?

Or is it fine because the first month of the new year is not on the first month of the year? :roll:

 

[Isabella]

I was curious why this is the year 5771, I asked the Jew today who did our service, and he said it is from creation, but that it's not a literal number, since time in garden is indeterminate. Anyone know of a different answer, of where the 5771 is counting from?

Probably he does not believe the six days (in Genesis 1) were actually six days. And that perhaps the earth existed for more than (five or six) days before Adam was created.

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
Genesis 5:3 NIV

130 years + 6 days = 130 years + 6 days

130 years + Metaphor =

We simply do not know how the ancients quantified a 'year'. Do you really think they counted one solar year in exactly the way that we do? You don't really think that one man lived to 130 and another man to 800 do you?

 

[CecilW]

[quote="Isabella"You don't really think that one man lived to 130 and another man to 800 do you?[/quote]

Until recently, maybe still, in the Hunza region of Nepal or somesuch, folks routinely live to 130 or 140 in good health. Volleyball games used to be between the young folks and the old folks. The dividing line for teams was age 70.

That's pretty far outside my personal experience. But with it in mind, in modern times, do I consider it possible that in the early days of this world's history, men could have lived close to a millennium? Yup. I do.

 

[Anonymous]

Isabella, the dividing line between truth and supposition is who said it. God gave us the ages of the the men before and after the flood. I believe God, who are you going to believe God or His sceptics? Yes they counted a year very much as we do. Yes the days of creation were 7 24 hour days. That is what the Bible declares. Yes, it can be substantiated. No, it is no leap of faith to believe that the God of heaven could do it.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I was curious why this is the year 5771, I asked the Jew today who did our service, and he said it is from creation, but that it's not a literal number, since time in garden is indeterminate. Anyone know of a different answer, of where the 5771 is counting from?

Probably he does not believe the six days (in Genesis 1) were actually six days. And that perhaps the earth existed for more than (five or six) days before Adam was created.

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
Genesis 5:3 NIV

130 years + 6 days = 130 years + 6 days

130 years + Metaphor =

We simply do not know how the ancients quantified a 'year'. Do you really think they counted one solar year in exactly the way that we do? You don't really think that one man lived to 130 and another man to 800 do you?

I think it was probably lunar years in the old testament. Honestly I would need to study history and linguistics more to know if it was lunar or solar years. A lunar year is close enough to a solar year, that it would still be hundreds of years.

Besides it does not mean that Adam only lived 130 years, he was alive for 130 years and had a son than continued to be alive, Adam died at 930 years old

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:3-5 NIV

You don't really think that one man lived to 130 and another man to 800 do you?

I think I do not understand the question, who are the two men, wouldn't the 130 year old, be in the same text as the 800 year old, are you saying that in one part of Genesis 5 they used one kind of year and in another part of genesis 5 they used another kind of year? Are you comparing two people in Genesis 5? Are you comparing people in Genesis 5 with people today?

Why not. Some people die at one and some at twenty some at eighty and some at one hundred years old, that does not mean we use different years today than today.

Do you believe that the Bible is historically accurate about physical things and spiritual things or just spiritual things but not physical things (or a different answer?)

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
John 3:12 NIV

Why do people die? If everyone always obeyed God, would people still die? Do you think that after people have sinned for thousands of years, it could have changed things in such a way that it is harder to live a long time before you die?

but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Genesis 2:17 NIV

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 2:17 King James
(The word translated day has a different meaning in context in Genesis 2 than in Genesis 1 because in Genesis 1 the word day is accompanied with phrases translated similar to evening and morning and a number.)

By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
Genesis 3:19 NIV

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Romans 5:12-14 NIV

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22 NIV

 

[Isabella]

Okaaaaay..... :shock:

Whatever makes you happy

x

 

[Paul not the apostle]

930 years translated down to say........93 years would make his lifespan a 10% reflection of his biblical age, and have him siring Seth at the age of......13 years on the planet. No big deal I guess because he was a man from the beginning of his existence we assume.

When Seth was born, Cain had already been born and had grown to the point of tilling the ground, harvesting and being responsible for bringing sacrifices to God (showing he had moved out from under his fathers authority due to his age maybe?), and had developed the physical and mental capacity to carry out murder, and go out and survive on his own and produce children and build a city. The youngest age that I can think that he would be is around 13 when this took place. This would mean that Cain and Abel were both born REALLY SOON after Adam was created, not accounting for Eve, gestation of both pregnancies of Cain and Abel, the recovery between the birth of Cain and the conception of Abel, or any of the situations regarding if Adam and Eve had sex in the garden before being kicked out.

The real problem is in the lineage described in chapter 5, and using the 10% rule, some of the following men were YOUNG when they fathered their sons....

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Gen 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 10 1/2 years old

Gen 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: 9 years old

Gen 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: 7 years old

Gen 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: 6 1/2 years old

Gen 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch: 16 years old

Gen 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: 6 1/2 years old

These were born as babies, not grown men like adam when he was created, so literal is the proper context.

Also, look at this situation;

Gen 47:8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
Gen 47:9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

So is this symbolic as well? If so he is 13 and is considered old by the pharoah, and has all these kids and offspring by the age of 13. Note that he tells the pharoah that he is 130 years old, but not as old as his forebearers. They did live to those ages as described literally. The problem normally comes from believing that the earth is older than 6000 years, and that the earth is the same as it was at creation, and that things were then as they are now.

The following passage addresses this issue;

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The years are literal.

 

[Isabella]

And your reason for using 10% of age given (as opposed to 20 or 40%) is????

I just think choosing 10% and than saying that it is unworkable at 10% therefore the meaning is literal is, frankly, bonkers.

But, as I said, if it makes you happy, think what you like.

 

[Anonymous]

Isabella, you can be so annoying at times.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

And your reason for using 10% of age given (as opposed to 20 or 40%) is????

I just think choosing 10% and than saying that it is unworkable at 10% therefore the meaning is literal is, frankly, bonkers.

But, as I said, if it makes you happy, think what you like.

ok, I will play along.

And your reason for not believing the literal ages is???? Sorry for the sarcasm, I would really like to know though. I have no problem with you not believing literal ages, I just want to know why you don't. It appears that the "if it makes you happy" statement is an implication that belief is irrational and based on feelings and not fact or faith. I have shown why I believe what I do about the ages. I don't understand what your basis for you NOT believing is, but like you said,

if it makes you happy, think what you like.

I did not choose 10% at random. Any percentage not close to that area produces results that are, frankly, bonkers . I used ten percent because anything more than that percentage would make the death ages far beyond what is seen today (which seems to be the basis of your problem with the literal age belief), and I was trying to be polite.

The higher the percentage that is applied, the older the death age, and passes any ceiling of death age in today's world. The lower the percentage, the lower the "fathering" age. It wont work either way is the point.

Let's use 50%. He is really 465 years old and fathered the kid at 65. Wait, 465 is too old to live.
Or 40%. 930 years @ 40% is 372(?), and the fathering age is 52. Too old again for lifespan.
Or 20%. 930 years @ 20% is 186 years old when passing from life, and fathering age is 26.
And then 10% which gives us what I posted earlier, 93 and 13. This is what gets the ages down under 100 years old.

Exactly what is the age cutoff that is acceptable regarding lifespan, I can use that info to calculate when the dudes in chapter 5 fathered their kids?


Rom 3:4

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I do not know if anyone on this post believes in the traditional big bang but you have a serious problem if you try to make the traditional big bang agree with Genesis chapter 1, whether through time dilation or metaphor.

The order of events are not changed (when switching reference frames) with time dilation/contraction and every time dilation/contraction is accompanied by a length dilation/contraction of equal proportion (in that way the speed of light is the same in every reference frame when change in length is divided by change in time.)

Needless to say Genesis chapter 1 is completely incompatible with the traditional big bang because the earth and light was created before the stars in the order of events. So if you multiply the time, it will just mean the earth and light were created much much earlier than the stars (or only a small amount of time earlier than the stars but still earlier), which would still disagree with the traditional big bang! I think a much more reasonable solution would be to divide the universe into time zones based on light travel time (which unlike Einstein's relativity could change the order of events without contradicting scripture and scientific models [but is still incompatible with the traditional big bang as I see it]), but this solution still is not necessarily true because experimental science models do not let us know historical events, [and perhaps it violates the scripture in a way I have not yet thought of] else Jesus could not have changed the loaves and fish into even more loaves and fish violating conservation of matter and energy and we could figure out who shot Abraham Lincoln, by ignoring all the eyewitness testimonies and simply doing an experiment in a science lab. :lol:

Of course the big bang is not actually a scientific claim at all but a historical claim :lol:

And the big bang does not use good science at all it is extrapolating probably less than one hundred years of collected data to a time frame of over 1 billion years. That is trying to guess more than 99% of data with less than 1% of data and that less than 1% does not overlap with the 99%. (10^2/10^9=10^-7) :lol:

But that is another topic unrelated to my original question about the new years. Is there a second official new years in the Bible or only one on the same month as passover?

 

[Isabella]

Isabella, you can be so annoying at times.

I have heard that before.

 

[Isabella]

And your reason for not believing the literal ages is????

Because it is just pretty random to me and....fantastical and....wishful thinking.....and....trying to make a certain timeline 'fit' what that timeline is, I have no idea, I am not well enough versed to know and it isn't that important to me, what I had been taught though is you can't possibly 'know' what they meant so, I don't just take what is written at face value, if you look at things through modern eyes you will see what you want to see, the ancients saw things a whole lot differently I am sure.

Sorry for the sarcasm, I would really like to know though

It is not a problem, I thought you were very polite actually and I hope my answer was sufficient.

I have no problem with you not believing literal ages, I just want to know why you don't. It appears that the "if it makes you happy" statement is an implication that belief is irrational and based on feelings and not fact or faith. I have shown why I believe what I do about the ages. I don't understand what your basis for you NOT believing is....

I don't believe faith is irrational, I just believe that you don't need to spend your whole life trying to rationalise something that is not rational. You are a modern man, you can't possibly know exactly what they meant so why bother, all these calculations just seem a bit desperate on the part of the modern person trying to make Genesis fit into their worldview.

(which seems to be the basis of your problem with the literal age belief), and I was trying to be polite.

Oh gosh no!!! That isn't my problem, my problem is anyone taking Genesis literally in the first place. Genesis is the origins myth of a race/peoples/nation. It is not meant to be literal. It is like a bardic cycle, through its telling you connect to the sacred origins of your people, unless you are one of the people it won't make sense to you and that is the reason why there are threads such as this one all over the boards.

Just my opinion of course.

Exactly what is the age cutoff that is acceptable regarding lifespan, I can use that info to calculate when the dudes in chapter 5 fathered their kids?

Please don't.....it is such an exercise in futility it really is.

Have a nice day.
Bels

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

(I am not denying that metaphors exist anywhere in scripture, but simply stating that some parts are historical events and you should figure out which is which when possible. If something really is a historic event, how could it not be a historic event?)

It is a serious problem if literal historical events become spiritual metaphors (and not historic events) because than you can make a Bible Passage mean anything you want.

After doing so you can create your own idea of what is moral and immoral.

I believe that the literal historical events are often put there as a way to verify that what is said is both accurate and comes of supernatural origin.

So that you can know to trust the moral things as truthful also.

There are certain axioms about this that I have not written in full but the next paragraph is a brief summary, (if I have not explained something clearly enough let me know.)

I start with certain physical axioms (such as a universe exists and is somehow related to what is perceived) and use these to determine if the scripture is accurate on the physical things and and I use a second axiom that if the individual Bible manuscripts and historical prophets have 100% prophetic prediction on historical events where testable, to a significant enough a degree this may hint that it is of supernatural origin, and is accurate for some things that you do not know how to test at the present time (such as moral things, and historical events that do not yet have evidence (other than scripture) for or against.) From there that is how I get my moral basis.

I know of no other way (than testing scripture and or special revelations accuracy with physical things) to get a moral basis other than starting from moral axioms. And if we start with moral axioms instead of physical actions, as I see it we will have no way to refute cultural teachings such as that it is morally acceptable to burn a widow the moment her husband dies (such as was practiced in India), because someone may say your axiom says it is wrong, but my axiom says it is right.

Therefor it is crucially important to me to treat the manuscripts in the Bible as historical documents that can be tested by other historical documents and other physical means.

Experimental scientific means are often a laughable way to test scripture because it is generally a bad idea in most cases to try to determine history by experiments done in a science lab today. (Although to some degree physical models usually need to be assumed when working with historical documents such as that they do not usually materialize out of thin air mysteriously five minutes before you looked at them, etc.)

In science we often try to get ideas on how things work based on historical events, the very idea of using scientific journal articles is based on the assumption that historical events somehow can help us develop science models. You can not reasonably say I am going to be a scientist and ignore the field of history otherwise you would have to forget your experiment one minute after you did it.

As I see it when historical documents show multiple eye witnesses to something on the basis of witnesses the scientifically reasonable thing to do is to assume that perhaps such an event could have occurred since people perceived it. Since science is based on the perception of individuals of historical events, used to try to predict how things work with models, that are then tested on future historical events.

If I saw someone live more than 200 years the scientific thing would be to assume people can live more than 100 years old in my point of view. (Of course I would probably have to live more than 100 years old to witness that or trust in the witness of others who knew the person before I was born.)

It is not reasonable to say science shows people can not live beyond such and such an age, when living beyond such and such an age is an observed historical event. That being said, it might be necessary to show this from multiple historic sources and not just one manuscript from the Bible.

Still no one has answered my original question at the beginning of the post. :!:

 

[steve]

Still no one has answered my original question at the beginning of the post.

ok, i will answer you
i do not know
(yes, i know, not very helpful. but it was an answer )