Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Oun Kwon <kwonbbl AT gmail.com>]

FYI,

In his out of print 'Bible Dates itself' (1974,
www.amazon.com/Bible-Dates-Itself<http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Dates-Itself-Arthur-Earle/dp/0960078819/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247771759&sr=1-1>)
Arthur Earle argued for base 7 numeral system to account for the ages
in
Patriarchal period (not Noah and antediluvian). A 100 year old in base 7 is
49 year old in base 10; 13 year old is 10 year old in base 10. (
www/base-converter <http://www.easysurf.cc/cnver17.htm#b10toba>)

The word 'adolescence' may be rather a modern concept.

Oun.


On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:17 AM, James Read<J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting JimStinehart AT aol.com:
>
>>
>> James Christian:
>>
>> The farther one goes back in history, the earlier the age at which a boy
>> became a man.
>
>
> Really? I'm not going to bother asking you to substantiate this
> statement. I know you will only ignore my request and just keep
> repeating the same stuff over and over again.
>
> FYI, Jim I think that the list members are intelligent enough to read
> your posts once and understand your theory. I make one final request.
> Either substantiate your bold statements which you present as fact or
> acknowledge that they are just a part of your theory.
>
> James Christian
>
>