Meet the Antediluvian Patriarchs, the long-lived figures listed in the Book of Genesis in the Bible, specifically in the genealogies from Adam to Noah, before the Great Flood.
Here’s a brief overview of these individuals:
Adam – The first man, according to the Bible. He lived to be 930 years old.
Seth – Adam’s third son, lived 912 years.
Enosh – Seth’s son, lived 905 years.
Kenan – Enosh’s son, lived 910 years.
Mahalalel – Kenan’s son, lived 895 years.
Jared – Mahalalel’s son, lived 962 years.
Enoch – Jared’s son, notable for not dying but being “taken by God” after living 365 years. His life span is unique among the patriarchs due to its brevity and the manner of his departure.
Methuselah – Enoch’s son, famous for being the person who lived the longest in the Bible, reaching 969 years.
Lamech – Methuselah’s son, lived 777 years.
Noah – Lamech’s son, lived 950 years, but his significance in the narrative extends beyond his age due to his role in the story of the Flood.
These ages have been a subject of much discussion and interpretation:
Some take these ages literally, believing that people in ancient times did live extraordinarily long lives due to different environmental conditions, divine will, or genetic purity.
Others see these ages as symbolic, perhaps representing the importance or the legacy of these figures, or adhering to numerological patterns important in ancient cultures.
From a historical-critical perspective, these ages might be considered mythological or legendary, used to signify the great antiquity or the legendary status of these figures.
Another theory suggests that the years might not correspond to our current understanding of a year. Perhaps they used a different calendar system where “years” could mean months or seasons, although this doesn’t fully align with the ages given, especially for childbearing.
The antediluvian period, meaning “before the deluge,” is often viewed as a time of great mystery and has inspired various interpretations and stories outside of the Biblical text, including in literature, pseudoscience, and speculative fiction about ancient human history and pre-Flood civilizations.
New misinformation bill cited as chilling assault on free speech
New misinformation bill cited as chilling assault on free speech. The Australian government has recently introduced the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, aiming to address the spread of misinformation and disinformation online.
“The Albanese government was forced to abandon a previous draft version of the laws after they were widely condemned by everyone from media organisations and tech companies to civil liberties groups and even the Australian Human Rights Commission.” — Sky News
Read the entire bill
The primary purpose of the bill seeks to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with new capabilities to combat seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation online. This includes the ability to require digital platforms to keep records, enforce industry codes, or set standards for managing misinformation.
Under the bill, if passed, it says that social media platforms could face significant fines, up to 5% of their global revenue, if they fail to comply with the regulations set forth by ACMA regarding the removal or management of misinformation.
This particular legislation includes a broad definition of what might constitute harm, including harm to public health, the economy, or public confidence in institutions like the banking system, and it has raised some serious concerns about what could be labeled as misinformation.
Freedom of speech advocates, including some politicians argue that the bill represents an attack on free speech. They fear it could be used to censor legitimate opinions or discussions, particularly those critical of government policies or actions. There’s concern over the bill’s potential to create a scenario akin to a Ministry of Truth.
What’s interesting about the bill is that it seems to exclude professional news content, and there’s criticism that it might not hold mainstream media to the same standards. There’s also a mention that the bill could impact discussions around significant public issues, like referendum proposals, by potentially classifying certain viewpoints as misinformation.
There’s been considerable backlash on social media platforms cross the board with regard to this bill, with users and some politicians highlighting the risks to freedom of expression. Critics argue that the definitions within the bill are too vague or broad, potentially allowing for overreach by the regulatory body.
The Australian government, through statements by Communications Minister Michelle Rowland, emphasizes that the bill aims to keep Australians safe from seriously harmful content without intending to stifle free speech. They argue it’s about ensuring digital platforms take responsibility for the content they host.
This bill reflects a global trend where governments are grappling with how to manage misinformation while balancing freedom of speech, with Australia’s approach being one of the more contentious examples due to its potential implications for online discourse.
The initial bill received so much backlash that Australian lawmakers had to table it … for now.
Eric Arthur Blair under the pen name George Orwell summed the society of today up quite nicely when he wrote “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
Eric Arthur Blair wasn’t a prophet by any stretch. He couldn’t see into the future any more than we can see. What Eric Arthur Blair did know was his history.
All of this misinformation nonsense has been tried before. In Roman times you could be fed to the lions for saying the wrong thing. In Nazi Germany you could be sent to the camps for saying the wrong thing.
If you think that this just might be an Australian problem, then I might suggest you watch the video below where Vice President Harris gives her views on the matter: