Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

"If you don't have a logical argument against it, I wil have to assume my interpretation of 'begetteth' is correct"

Obviously Lee commits a logical fallacy here.
One being correct depending on whether your opponent in a debate is CAPABLE of making a logical argument is utter nonsense.
That would be like me saying to a 5-year old (and yes, in this case i am comparing myself to a 5-year old):
Pink elephants are real and if you (the 5-year old) cannot make a logical argument for the opposite, then I assume I must be right.

Explanation:
Let's suppose that the 5-year old cannot make a logical argument to counter my premise, and can only go by the fact that he has never seen a pink elephant, and knows (as opposed to atheists) that you cannot make an absolute statement in the negative (such as: "there is no God in the entire universe") without having omniscient knowledge, does that mean I am right?
Of course not.
Lee being right is not dependant on the skills of his opponent in a debate, but it depends on what the truth is. Now I there might still BE a logical counter argument, even if I am unable to make it! But here it goes...

Anyway, to answer the question:
Yes, Lee. Begat can mean "have a son", or have a "grandson" or "have a great grandson" etc.
So when Adam begat Seth, he had a ......son (with the .... being either blank, grand-, great grand-, etc).
I have admitted this and we have all agreed on that.
However, what you did, is that you introduced a different meaning (and think you could slip it by me unnoticed).
You added the words "ancestor of" that as far as I know is not in the text.
So your text then becomes:
When Adam begat Seth, he had a ......son (with the .... being either blank, grand-, great grand-, etc) who was an ancestor of Seth.
This is adding text, and if that is allowed, we are not going anywhere anytime soon.

The verb "to beget" means to have a descendant, but it does NOT mean "to have a descendant, who is an ancestor of".
So sorry Lee, but try again. You have certainly been creative in trying to answer that burning question, but you have used means that you will have to prove is allowed by the Hebrew. I think you won't be able to. But I admire your attempt.

Bret,

Great response Stu, I agree with their assessment as well. Below I have provided my take on interpreting Bret' s specific question.

I guess my parable approach didn't work either. Okay, this is an exercise in patience as the Lord guides us on how to count years in the Bible.  This attempt will explain other possibilities for the age of birth number and the evolution of meaning of the word begat (or whatever the pre-Hebrew campfire word was) caused by time, generations, and cultures. This does not imply in any way that there is an error in the original recorded versions or those that follow, only that the reader has to be very studious and careful with interpretation of scripture before reaching an understanding of what God through people is trying to get across to us. The translators of new versions of the Bible must also be extremely careful to use new wording to convey the correct concepts. This is not done in all modern versions.  My point is that there is a lot of room for interpreting the word 'begat' and some translations have lost the true meaning. 

In this case the word 'begat' and its tenses came from a Hebrew term that due to a very limited word set had multiple meanings: 'fathered' or 'fathered an ancestor of'. This implies potentially 1 to many generations between the name mentioned to the following name mentioned.  The number  applies to the parent and the first descendent of the parent since the accounting of all intermediary decendents is unknown and lost to unrecorded insignificant histories for these individuals. Only the data for the original ancestor was saved and passed on through x missing generations throughout antiquity. The information about the intermediaries and time span was not available or at least uncertain and was not included in the transcriptions to Hebrew in Genesis and then subsequent languages.  

How would the original authors of Genesis know how many years elapsed between Enosh and Kenan other than stories passed from generation to generation using pre-Hebrew languages taught verbally by parents to their children?  If Stu and I are correct in our assessment, the original Hebrew writers of Genesis didn't know nor could they include all the missing generations.  So how could they know and include the time span to a multi-generational descendent of Enosh. Consequently, the time listed would have to apply to the original descendent of Enosh because Enosh's records only were preserved due to his great longevity and higher importance to the early Hebrew nation.  

It amazes me that out of all the ancient cultures the Hebrews did the best job of recording ancient members in including members of the human race all the way back to the first man. That is very impressive. Why anyone would expect all of them to be listed with an exact accounting of years is beyond my comprehension?  Just to have some of there names, ages at death, and ages when they had a child is a miracle of preservation.  The Bible looses no credibility for me with the history being limited to a few characteristics about some long living ancestors.  However, for me, the claim by YEs to have a complete geneology by name and exact number of years to the creation of Adam to Abraham tarnishes the Bible's great credibiliy. Especially when other factual data is saying a much greater time period.   
Also a strict insistance that the number of years at birth applies only from the ancestor to the descendent listed further erodes the credulity.  On the other hand, no issue results when the age at birth applies to the original unnamed descendent with an unknown number of years separated the patriarchs listed.    

In modern translations the more robust and specialized choice of words such as father has been introduced since they are available and meaningful in our English language. These terms have resulted in the dropping of the multiple meaning word 'begat' with a substitution of the term 'son' or 'father' in some versions of the Bible. This implies a direct single generation only in some versions of the Bible (WEB, NET, BBE) instead of the multigeneration descendency intended by the original author using 'begat' in versions such as the KJV, ASV, YLT.  

It seems to me that something very similar to this word meaning drift may have creeped into the original Hebrew from earlier languages used to tell the geneologies.  At some point it would be impossible to recount all of the generations, and knowing that the history was incomplete, some generations would have likey introduced the word begat for those that could be remembered.  This was a good thing for  the modern reader; can you imagine how boring it would be to read through roughly a thousand generations over a fifty thousand year period. It would be hard to stay focused and make it to the next chapter before falling asleep!  

Lee  

PS    I hope you understand this version. Can we move on now?

Hi Bret -- thanks for asking the question. I stand with The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which was issued in 1978 by the Congress sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars.
http://www.seekinghim.net/docs/doctrine/Chicago%20Statement%20on%20Biblical%20Inerrancy.pdf

The Exposition section defines the terms which form the basis for interpreting the biblical genealogies as other than exact chronologies. I have already posted my interpretation of biblical genealogies and my reasoning to support it. Below are two sections from the Exposition that deals specifically with interpretation of those kind of passages (highlighting is mine).

Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.

lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.


Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

Hello gentlemen ...

I'm back from hiatus (vacation) and would like to weigh in!
I agree with Stu about our main goal here being that ... we should try to CLEARLY
understand each others stance on these Topics ... so as to be able to defend them
against the attacks of the aggressive non-believers !!!
Of course! ... we do NOT (personally) accept these explanations ... but should be
armed with the Best & Most accurate defense of each others Biblical understandings!

With that said ... I can defend your stance on the word "Day" in Genesis!
I'm getting a slightly clearer view on how (each of you) explain away the stated
years in the Genesis chronologies! I'm not so sure that you guys have presented
your Best & Most accurate defense ... as of yet?
I believe that we're ALL getting tired of debating this particular Topic ... but
I honestly would like for both of you (Stu & Lee) to answer this specific question
(one more time)... if you were ask to defend it by a non-believer!

When the Bible says that "A" was 150 years old when "B" was born ... and "B" was
70 years old when "C" was born ... (no matter how many generations you believe
were not mentioned in-between)... HOW DO YOU CHANGE THESE NUMBERS ... and at the
same time ... claim that the Bible is without ERROR ???

What am I suppose to tell the non-believer that ask me to defend your stance ???
HELP ME! PLEASE !!!

And ... PLEASE! ... focus on the stated Numbers ONLY !!!
What is the Best & Most precise answer that I should give ???

Thank you for helping me defend the Faith from ALL angles!


20 Bret* 11

Stu- 'Lucien is asking how we fit the missing generations into the "........" (spaces between) which we are assuming account for the extra thousands of years.'

I am confounded by the difficulty people are having with understanding what I have been stating that seems so very clear to me. Let me use Lucien's analogy of the distance to San Diego to aid in my quest of explaining this key point.

Lucien- 'You're driving around in LA and see a sign that states: San Diego 120 miles.
Now either this is true.
Else, either the city, the distance, or both are incorrect.
Presuming that the sign-makers did their homework, both you and I would go with it being a true statement.'

The problem that has occurred rests with the sign-maker.  The data and words he used to come up with the 120 miles were extracted from ancient manuscripts and he had to piece together the information. Unfortunately the sign-maker made an error when he translated the phrase 'begat 120 mega cubits to Cainan on the way to Santiago'.  The sign maker was from the YE clan of the San Diego Indian Tribe which didn't speak the Cainan language very well.  He didn't know that 'begat 120 kilocubits to Cainan on the way to Santigo' actually means a partial distance to just Cainan with the remainder of the distance being unknown by the Cainan Tribe. Because the YE clan was putting pressure on the sign-maker to finish the sign and he didn't have time to study the ancient Cainan clan language, he had the sign read '120 miles to San Diego. The modern descendents of the Cainan Tribe don't despise the sign-maker for this error, they just wish the YE clan would stop saying that San Diego is 120 miles since they know it was mistranslated from the ancient data and text. Many of the young braves of all tribes are running out of gas and head in the wrong direction on their attempt to get to San Diego by way of Chile. 

Lee    

Lucien -- Thank you for asking me to explain the "plain and forward reading of Genesis." I was not referring to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, I was referring to the overall sense of age one gets when reading Genesis 3-12 as a history. It was the sense I had in my initial years of reading and studying the Bible -- and still do.

There are three distinct ages:

(1) The antediluvian period (thousands, probably tens of thousands of years back in antiquity)
• the creation of Adam and Eve, and the initial inhabitants of earth (Gen 3 & 4)
• the corruption of mankind and the judgment by flood (Gen 6-9)
• an "open genealogy" that establishes a lineage from Adam (Gen 5)

(2) The settling of the nations over many thousands of years (Gen 10,11)
• "From these (genealogy) the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to his language, according to their families, into their nations." (10:5)
• ".. the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided .." (10:25)
• "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these nations were separated on the earth after the flood." (10:32)
• Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words (11:1). (I don't know how to interpret this in light of 10:25.)
• An "open genealogy" to establish the lineage of Abraham

(3) The call of Abraham (Genesis 12) around 2000BC (mostly known from secular history)

I do not get a "common sense interpretation" that only hundreds of years separate these periods of time. And I certainly don't get a common sense interpretation that the flood occurred in 270 years prior to Abraham. Nor that Noah and his father and sons were contemporaries of Adam and Abraham.

BTW -- what do you think of Bret's chart? How do you reconcile your dates to it?

Lee - I think you and I agree on the formulation of a possible answer. I made my proposal in my Dec 20 post: Gen 5&11 are "open genealogies, where" A+B+.....+C....+D=2300+?.

I agree with you that "beggeteth" can, and does mean in this case, "fathered an ancestor of." Lucien, however, says the text demands a "closed genealogy," where A+B+C+D+etc=2300 and presents as evidence: "My dad was 37 when he had me, and when I have a child at age X, the difference between my dad and my child will be is 37+X." Lucien is asking how we fit the missing generations into the "........" (spaces between) which we are assuming account for the extra thousands of years.

How would you answer him?

Stu & Lucien,

I can't stand idly by and not comment about how you both are ignoring my  alternate interpretation to explain this seeming conundrum of Genesis 5 and 11.   I believe this version to be a perfectly justifiable and logical alternative to the hardline YE version that 'begetteth' can only mean 'fathered' (first generation only). My interpretation eliminates the issues that you, Lucien, have pointed out to Stu. I put it on the table for your consideration and rebuttal (if any) and received nothing other than your response Lucien to ignore it. If you  don't accept my interpretation of the original term 'begetteth' as 'fathered an ancestor of' in a modern translation then you at least owe your brother a logical explanation why. Below is an example in case you both missed my earlier post. 

YLT Genesis 11:16 And Eber liveth four and thirty years, and begetteth Peleg.

 Genesis 11:16 And Eber liveth four and thirty years, and fathered an ancestor of Peleg.

If you don't have a logical argument against it, I wil have to assume my interpretation of 'begetteth' is correct and this resolves the chronology issues: that Genesis 5 & 11 cannot be used for chronology. They can only be used for ages of key Hebrews and their ages when they parented ancestors of other key Hebrews in Adam's line to first Noah then from Noah to Abraham. You  earlier agreed that 'begetteth' could mean a series of ancestors and not just one generation. Are you going back on what you previously agreed to just because you don't like the solution to this dilema that it provides?

Lee 

Dear Stu,

thanks for your post and concern.

Although you say you "have shown that genealogical interpretation is not linear arithmetic" you also "have to admit [you] don't know" why God "included the father's ages in the text".
My dad was 37 when he had me, and when I have a child at age X, the difference between my dad and my child will be is 37+X.
We all get this simple addition but yet you warn me I should be careful about my bravado of being so confident in applying the straightforward meaning of the text.
Then you go and make a statement I do not understand at all, and even is a contradiction in terms:
"The plain and straightforward reading of Genesis dates Adam and Noah in antiquity versus Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in and around 2000 BC. Because you are forcing Scripture to mean something it was never intended to, you are now forced to reject common sense as well."
What I take from this, and please correct me as soon as possible, because I hope I understood you wrong, is that you are saying is that the straightforward reading is forcing Scripture to mean something it did not intend to. What this implies is that God largely is a poor communicator to His people.
This in turn would be a carte blanche for all sorts of sects and cults to make Scripture mean pretty much anything, apart from what it actually says (the straightforward reading).
Because my straightforward reading "linear arithmetic" makes sense, and you don't know why the father's age is included in the text and still have not provided a solid explanation of where the extra years are going to come from I am continuing to be confident in Adam at about 4000 BC, Noah at about 3000 BC, Abraham at about 2000 BC and David at about 1000 BC.
Why would i abandon something simple and straightforward for something counter-intuitive that you yourself don't even understand? Who was it again that said that the simplest model is usually the right one? Occam's Razor?

Anyway, glad you believe the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs was extremely high and accept that Noah was not too far from Abraham and Shem actually overlapped with Abraham.

Lucien

... God knows how to count and inspire the writers of the Bible.

And, if your linear arithmetic method of interpreting genealogies was what God meant, the numbers would add the way you want them to. I have acknowledged that point already(LA to San Diego is 120 miles). But I have shown that genealogical interpretation is not linear arithmetic, so you're applying the wrong method to the biblical data (I won't even attempt a Google Map analogy).

The question then becomes what did God mean when he included the father's ages in the text? I have to admit I don't know, but I don't think that proves your point either. Certainly the detail He gives lends credibility to the fact that people lived to enormously long ages before the flood -- having children at 100+ years of age is certainly fitting for someone who lives as long as 900 years (Geisler). B.B. Warfield suggests that this information should "make a vivid impression on us of the vigor and grandeur of humanity in those old days of the world's prime."

You can't seem to accept that your method of genealogical interpretation may be faulty -- it's your way or the highway. You should be careful about the bravado in your statement, "If God tells me, I believe it" without first asking yourself, "What does God mean by this passage?"

Your point about Jesus historicity and the patriarchs is a non-sequitur. I believe as you do in the historical data given in the NT, but as I have alrady shown I doubt the exact chronology of the genealogical accounts because they are to be interpreted by their theological purpose.

The plain and straightforward reading of Genesis dates Adam and Noah in antiquity versus Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in and around 2000 BC. Because you are forcing Scripture to mean something it was never intended to, you are now forced to reject common sense as well.

...but you haven't answered what I thought was a fair and simple question.

Let me try it once again.

You're driving around in LA and see a sign that states: San Diego 120 miles.
Now either this is true.
Else, either the city, the distance, or both are incorrect.
Presuming that the sign-makers did their homework, both you and I would go with it being a true statement.

You are reading the Bible and you see that Seth was 105 when he begat Enos. I.e Enos was born when Seth was 105 years roaming the earth.
Now this is true.
Or else, either the names, the number, or both are incorrect.
Presuming that God knew how to count, and inspire the writers of the Bible I would take this as a true statement.
I only say "I" as you apparently still think you can squeeze in more years.

Can you please explain how?
(You cannot increase/decrease the distance between LA and SD, so how can you fit more years in-between Seth and Enos?)


PS, I have no problems with Noah being contemporary with Abraham's father and Shem contemporary with Abraham. We KNOW from Scripture that the pre-Flood (born) patriarchs had great longevity and we know that God dropped the age of man we are more familiar with now after the Flood.
Why is this so hard to accept? You accept a man was tortured, crucified and killed and then rose again on the 3rd day, don't you?
If a girl would tell me she had a baby as a virgin (and not artificially inseminated, etc.), of course I would be skeptical. If God tells me, I believe it.

Lucien,

I really do appreciate your commitment (and struggle) with God's Word to discern what He means when He speaks. And I appreciate the opportunity to explain how I arrived at my view -- it is based on a different method of interpretation.

Please let me label your interpretation of Genesis 5 "linear and arithmetic" for purposes of this discussion. Also please understand that there are other ways of interpretation which I think are more appropriate, and I will call "literary and metaphorical."

I will admit that my first take on interpreting the passage was the same as yours: add up the numbers to discover 4004. Even though the Bible doesn't do that, it is one of the ways of thinking (presuppositions) I have when approaching a list that contains numbers. But when I went back to do further biblical reflection; studied Bret's chart; and researched what reliable Christian minds of times past and present have discovered, I concluded that the linear/arithmetic (Ussher chronology) method is implausible.

First I note from Bret's chart that Noah's father would have been a contemporary of Adam; Noah and Abraham would have been contemporaries; and Noah's son, Shem is contemporary with Isaac and Jacob! That makes no sense to me from a straight forward reading of Genesis. Linear interpretation makes Truth out of these apparent anachronisms. Bells go off and I think -- something else must be going on.

As I studied the biblical chronologies, I was overwhelmed by the apparent discrepancies, contradictions and errors that result from the linear method of interpretation (documented in my last several posts). These issues need to be explained away if we are to keep an infallible Bible. Bells again go off -- there must be another way of looking at these genealogies rather than linear chronologies which generate all these "apparent errors."

Then, I looked at what biblical scholars have noted, e.g. --

• a symmetrical arrangement of Genesis 5 and 11 into groups of ten, each ending with a father who had three sons; and the symmetrical arrangement in Matthew 1 where there are three series of fourteen with missing generations. This is an indication that the biblical authors have theological and literary purposes in mind for genealogies rather than linear and arithmetic purposes.

• the Bible comes out of another culture which uses metaphorical imagery, and this sometimes takes time for the Western mindset to comprehend. Remember during the Middle Ages the criticisms levied against the Bible for teaching that the sun went around the earth (the Bible's use of phenomenological language such as "sunrise"). And that the earth was flat because the Bible speaks of the "four corners of the earth."

• "telescoping" of genealogical records (i.e., skipping of several generations in any particular presentation) not only occurs throughout the Bible, but in other ancient literature as well, such as the Assyrian genealogical records.

And lastly, the external evidence. I agree that God's Word (properly interpreted) trumps scientific and historical evidences, but we can't ignore it either. If we did, we'd be back in the Middle Ages. There is extremely strong evidence that human beings were around well before 4004BC -- even before 10,000 BC. And to think the Flood occurred in 2270BC (assuming Abraham is 2000BC and I'm interpreting Bret's chart correctly) -- that seems nonsensical to me as we have legitimate recorded histories to the contrary from civilizations going back to 4000BC.


So for me to use the linear and arithmetic method of genealogical interpretation would change the discussion from the infallibility of Scripture to the credulity of Scripture. That's not a place God wants me to be. I hope that answers your question.

Have a Blessed New Year,

Stu

1 Cor. 15:45
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. [4004 years later]

Of course, the text in square brackets was written by me and not found in the Bible.
Yes, I know we are not to add to the Bible, but am just doing this to illustrate a point. A point I have tried to get across time and time again.

If the text above was in the Scriptures, we would not be having this debate, now would we?
But it doesn't say that.
We know the text does not say: "When Adam had lived 4004 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Jesus."
This would mean: Adam + ??? + Jesus = 4004 years.
Stu & Lee, I know you don't agree with the 4004 years, but I certainly think we all believe Jesus is a descendant from Adam.
We all know a lot happened where the ??? are. Jesus refers to some of those events.
What if the ??? were split up in smaller portions?
Adam + ??? + Noah + ??? + Abraham + ??? + David + ??? + Jesus
No direct information is given in the Bible about how much time elapsed between these key people (like the square brackets I put above), but I would say roughly 1000 years for each period.
Again, none of us would dispute these patriarchs, but maybe Stu and Lee would argue about the time elapsed. There are still question marks, and Bret and I contend that there is information about these ??? in the Scriptures. Everybody agrees. Let's look at the first section.

Adam + ??? + Seth + ??? + Enos + ??? + Cainan + ??? + Mahalalel + ??? + Jared + ??? + Enoch + ??? + Methusalah + ??? + Lamech + ??? + Noah
Up to this point, nobody has argued.
Stu and Lee argue from here, that the ??? probably contain missing generations that are NOT mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Bret and I concede that the Hebrew would allow for this, but there is NO Biblical evidence. We believe the ??? are empty.
Still no argument though.
Where we start to differ is the time elapsed.
There IS clear evidence that from Adam to Seth 130 years elapsed. Stu honestly has conceded this.
Note that this renders the ??? between Adam and Seth IRRELEVANT, since the time period from Adam to Seth is fixed.
Now, if you don't like this, then there are two options which were already mentioned:
-the number is wrong.
-one or both of the names involved are wrong.
Bret and I would suggest that any alternative views are wrong.
Of course the same applies to Seth-Enos, etc.
The names and numbers are given and render the ??? IRRELEVANT.

People can bring up arguments about there names missing in the ???, but I have just demonstrated that these discussions add nothing to the age of the human history.
Hence I am waiting patiently for Stu to show me that the ??? ARE in fact relevant and CAN add years to the years of human history.

Lucien

You have yet to explain to me the question Imposed on Tuesday the 21st of December, and numerous occasions before that:

If we allow for any missing generations: A + ... + C etc.
And we know that A to C is a fixed number of years, how then do you add years on the dots?

This is similar to the analogy of the distance between LA and SD, which I have also mentioned more than once.
No matter how many times we stop for a Starbucks in Orange Coutny, we know the distance from LA to SD is a fixed number.

So, are you finally going to answer this question, because I really struggle.
Lee may help you, as he seems to opine a similar point of view...

Cheers,
Lucien

I appreciate your reading my case that "genealogies are not necessarily absolute chronologies" (Open Chronology)and for starting to respond with your "Closed Chronology" defense. We could go on for another 49 web pages debating the topic (which I am not going to do), but I do want to make one last point.

Biblical Christians (more knowledgeable and discerning than us) have been debating this for centuries and have not been able to come to agreement. Over time, however, most have come to respect the other's view as legitimate, even if they don't agree. I have arrived at that point with your view (at least at the 10,000 year old possibility). It seems, however, you think that my view (10,000-50,000 years) cannot possibly be legitimate.

In my argumentation for "Open Chronologies" I have been careful not to go outside the Scriptures, yet you charge that I override the Word of God with OE dogma. I have made my case without doing that.

I think you have a blind spot when it comes to your "Closed Chronologies" perspective -- especially since both of you are analytical and well educated. You both appreciate and are schooled in science, history, logic, hermeneutics and argumentation -- and understand how one's presuppositions can affect outcome. But it seems you think you stand apart and are a "blank slate" and are wholly objective in being able to discern Special Revelation from General Revelation and properly adjudicate. Let's admit that none of us can fully step outside ourselves and our presuppositions to appreciate another's view unless we work at it with humility and plenty of revisits.

We don't have to resort to extremes either -- such as "Open Chronology trashes the Bible;" or seeing the other as a heretic; or inventing our own science, trashing history and archaeology, etc. There are plenty of places to land without precipitating a tipping point.

As I said before, my motivation for engaging both of you is not to change your YE belief, it is to critically understand why you believe what you believe, and challenge you where appropriate. In my witnessing to others, I like to say that some Christians think that mankind is 10,000 years old and be able to give their reasoning; however, others think 50,000 and give theirs. I am motivated to persuade you not to be dogmatic about your view. My early experience with Ken Ham and the YE community made me shudder. They wanted to (and apparently still do) impose their interpretation of the Bible on the Church, and I continue to see that as antithetical to winning a modern world to Christ and transmitting our faith in Christ to the next generation (as well as discovering Truth).

And then seriously question one of his statements.

Yes Lee, a translation will always be just that: a translation.
Of course the best would be the Hebrew/Greek.

But then you go on about your Young's Literal Translation and then call the KJV modern?
When was the Young's Literal Translation done? (Wiki, which always tells the truth (lol), says end of the 19th century)
When do you think the KJV was done?
Was that a slip of the tongue of yours?

Anyway, nothing serious, but just wanted to point this contradiction out to you.


Lucien

Bret,

Let me be a little less abstruse and flipant in my second response to your concern about distorting the absolute Word of God. I agree with you that God's original Word is absolute as well as His knowledge and understanding of all Creation. I just don't believe all modern translations including the KJ convey to all people God's perfect truth. I explain this below and I am very interested in this topic. I just don't believe you or Lucien are understanding God's True meaning because of the Bible and biases you have.   

First, permit me to first ask a fundamental question on this topic.  What are the various translations of Bible if not a but an attempt to make God's original words and historical events relative to evolving groups of people and languages over thousands of years and thousands of cultures and languages in use?  Do all translations convey the exact meaning God intended to all readers in all cultures over all times?  Of course not!  

I think you said you prefer the King James version in an early post.   The wording of your version doesn't match the YLT version. Which is correct since they are both absolute by your viewpoint?  I prefer Young's Literal Translation since I am not capable of reading and understanding Hebrew or Greek. I think this translation tries to be the closest to the original meaning, like the third  person in the telephone game with God being the first, the writer being the second. Modern translations, like the King James, are more like the fourth person since they insert modern grammar, words, and unfortunately biases into the translations for readability and clarity in a modern world with the translator full of modern and religious biases. At least most versions initially refer to the original writings in Greek and Hebrew when translating. Yet there are groups translating from modern English versions into foreign languages to attempt to reach remote groups of people today.  This makes these versions of God's Original Word very relative, you must agree, it is a fact of people, time, translations and culture over thousands of years.  

Lee

Hi Stu

it is a different Salathiel (Shealthiel) in Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 (not 37).
Read a few names before and after.
(and yes, they both had a Zerubbabel as descendant)


Lucien

My dear friend Stu ...

We are actually within reach of each other ... on this one!
(But ... I'm afraid that Lee has drifted off into the sea of indifference?)

When I see Jesus calling himself "the door"... I follow the precepts that I mentioned before!
I find numerous passages that refer to Jesus as a Man!
Therefore ... His reference must be metaphorical!
Further study leads me to understand that He was referring to His role as Savior!
He is the ONLY door from this World that leads into Heaven!
Choose "The Door" ... or fall through the floor!

My point about "Absolute Authority"...
is that the Bible is the FINAL arbitrator for ALL Truth!
Using ANY other source of information to seek Truth is "Subjective"... !!!
Of course ... ALL honest examinations of evidences will align with the Scriptures!
When there seems to be a discrepancy between some (apparent) evidence ...
and the Bible ... we should be more critical and skeptical of this (New) evidence
than we should be about the Absolute Source of Truth!

Honestly Stu ... your argument for distrusting Genesis 5 because of the passages
in Matthew & Luke is based on a false premise!
God is NOT attempting redundancy here ... but has three different purposes for these
3 different genealogies!

Matthew traces Mary's lineage!
Luke traces Joseph's lineage!
Genesis gives us an actual time frame to the early history of mankind!

Matthew & Luke do NOT give numerical values!
So ... unless the names given were in conflicting chronologies (order of occurrence)...
then there is NO discrepancy (mistakes) that need to be reevaluated!
Therefore ... your decision to allegorize the Genesis account has another source of
influence ... that is OUTSIDE of the Bible!
You yourself even said that you did NOT know why God included FIXED numbers to this
genealogy ... but maybe we'll understand when we get to Heaven? (Right?)

It seems fairly obvious that you've chosen (subjectively) to distrust the CLEAR context
of these Scriptures ... just so you can feel more comfortable clinging to the secular
dogma that tells us that things are MUCH older than God has described in His Word!

Stu ... I don't believe that you're going to Hell for holding this view ... but I think
that you could be a little bit more honest about who's clinging to dogma ... and who's
just reading the Text (as written) and believing it!

What's so funny about all of OUR hand-ringing on this Topic is ...
that WE BOTH AGREE that 10,000 years is an acceptable possibility !!!
I don't believe that brother Lee would agree?


Bret* 2010

Bret my friend -- you are confusing truth and interpretation. What does Jesus mean when he says, "I am the door?" You and I both choose to "find an alternative explanation" to the absolute sense of that phrase. We look for, and find, "other verses [as well as use common sense and logic] to sustain a viable alternative explanation." We do not have to give up and disbelieve the "ultimate source of authority."

When we attempt to find out what a passage of Scripture is saying (i.e. its literal interpretation), we ask ourselves, "what kind of passage is this?" and "what is its context? "What do other passages say about this subject?" Is it a historical passage? metaphorical? proverbial? legal? a parable? predictive prophecy? a parallelism? scientific? phenomenological? genealogical?

As I have exhaustively shown (from the Bible), genealogies are a type of literature and are subject to interpretation. How did you choose to interpret Matthew 1 and Luke 3? You are so sure of Genesis 5. Apply those same principles to the NT and tell me what the "absolute truth" is?

You are also confusing the meaning of "subjectivity." Nobody is saying that, "you have your truth and I have mine -- and that's OK." No -- one of us is wrong. The difference between you and me on this subject (genealogies) is that you are dogmatic about being right, and I am uncertain. Your Genesis 5 evidence is undermined by the counter-evidence I have presented. But you either reject my analysis out of hand or don't give it enough credence to bother to answer it. The case for my interpretation of Gen 5 is objective (not subjective), but it is uncertain. At minimum it is certainly plausible! Uncertainty is not subjectivity. And, dogmatism in light of biblical uncertainty is not a solid foundation for faith.

Stu

I love relativity.  Without God's Word being relative, errors would start being obvious in the absolute. Relativity was one of God's great insights in making the universe fit for His children. No matter how fast we go the physical laws are still the same. No matter what century and time it is the physical laws are the same.  No matter what generation you are in His spiritual Laws are the same. Relativity has made all things both timeless and eternal. Praise God That His Word is relative to everyone across all generations!  Across all translations from generation to generation, may His absolute laws prevail in their relativism!  


Happy New Year!

Lee

Stu (& Lee)...

The Bible is the ONLY source of ABSOLUTE authority!
When you allow yourself to second-guess the straight-up reading of the Text ...
you can ONLY go back to the Bible (the ONLY source of ABSOLUTE authority)... to try
and find an alternative explanation to what you've just read!
When you choose to disbelieve a passage as written ... but can find NO other verses
to sustain a viable alternative understanding ... then you're ONLY left with subjective
sources of information to substitute the objective Truth of the passage that you chose
(subjectively) to disbelieve!
Truth is NOT subjective!
Believing that your Truth ... & my Truth can contradict each other ... yet still both
can be believed as Truth ... is subjective!
EVERYONE has an ultimate source of authority!
There's sinking-sand ... or solid (Holy) ground!
Choose your Foundation wisely?


Bret* 2010

As I was reading the Christmas Story this season I couldn't help but reflect on its impact on our current debate.

Matthew 1 (KJV)
1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
4And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
5And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
8And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
9And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
11And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
[Luke 3 reads, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"]
17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Bret has recently said, ".. if your (Lee's) interpretation is correct? ... then the Bible is TRASH !!!" and "Either the Bible is 100% totally & completely INFALLIBLE ... or it is worthless !!!"

And bonny Lucien has stated, " If we cannot trust these genealogy numbers, can we trust anything else in the Scriptures? You have just opened the door to liberalism and basically put the rest of Scripture on quick-sand. You may not like me saying this, but trust me, any lawyer on the opposing team would nail you down after making statements like that and rip you to shreds."

Lee has correctly replied, "People fight incessantly over the centuries about the meaning. Is the Bible still the inerrant word of God? Yes of course. He knows and conveys perfect truth to people that struggle to understand its meaning ..."

Here is some serious intelligent reflection on the NT genealogies from The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

The Matthaean genealogy is composed of OT (LXX) data for the names from Abraham to Zerubbabel (references given) with some deletions in the list of kings (between Joram and Uzziah) and a few apparent discrepancies (cf. 1 Ch. 3:19; Mt. 1:12). The derivation of the nine names between Zerubbabel and Joseph is unknown. The intention of the compiler of the Matthaean genealogy can (probably) be determined only by accounting for the deliberate 3x14 structure, the details added to the succession of the names in the list, and the relation of the genealogy to the subsequent material in Matthew. ... What was the intention of this structure? ... [It expounds on various theories that have been advanced by serious Christians over the centuries.]

The article goes on to compare Matthew's genealogy to Luke's.

(1) Matthew followed the royal line from David to Jechoniah, while Luke traced Jesus' descent from David's son Nathan through a series of different and unknown names; both lists meet again in Salathiel, who is given different fathers in the two lists (Mt. 1:12; Lk. 3:37). (2) From Zerubbabel to Joseph both lists are composed of unknown names, those in one list differing from those in the other until they meet again in Joseph. Thus Joseph's father in Mt. 1:16 is Jacob; in Lk. 3:23k, Heli. (3) Matthew has thirteen names from the Exile to Jesus (in spite of his assertion in 1:17 that he has fourteen); Luke has twenty-two for the same period ....

Harmonizing Attempts. It is especially the first two differences mentioned above that have caused numerous attempts to harmonize the two lists. Briefly stated, the most frequently hypotheses have been the following: (1) Both lists are genealogies of Joseph, but Matthew traced the biological ancestry, Luke the legal [evidence is given] (2) More frequently suggested in modern times is the theory that Matthew gave the legal line of descent and Luke the natural (3) ...[Martin] Luther [and others] have been followed by several modern scholars in considering the Matthaean list a genealogy of Joseph and the Lukan list a genealogy of Mary. .... (4) Tertullian and a few modern scholars reversed the preceding view and held that Matthew gave the genealogy of Mary and Luke that of Joseph.
Certainly none of these attempts have proved to be totally convincing ... It would be rash to treat the genealogies of Jesus as pure reflections of accurate genealogical information concerning Jesus' ancestry...

So dear friends, my plea is -- let's not be rash. Lucien's hypothetical lawyer on the opposing team would obliterate to shreds dogmatic literal NT genealogies. And here we're dealing with the New Testament where we have Exhibit A -- preserved manuscripts from just several centuries back, written just decades after the actual events (compared to the Genesis accounts and manuscripts that are removed from the actual events by thousands of years).

Plus there is testimony by Lucien who has admitted to NT "error" of some type (" I do not think there are errors, but just the one error (singular): Cainan in Luke 3 (not found in the OT)."

And then if we were to impose arithmetic on the text by arguing for a generation of 33, 50, or 100 years old, we would be making matters even worse.

Bret -- the Bible does not have to meet your understanding or interpretive criteria to be reliable and authoritative -- given by an infallible God as an inerrant Word to fallible and sinful humanity (Lee's point). There's no need for you to see the Bible as "TRASH and WORTHLESS" just because it doesn't fit your evaluative criteria. God is more impressed by our study, our reasoning and our humility than He is by our bravado. Remember, it is the Holy Spirit that lives in born-again hearts that gives illumination to each. None of us have the right to legislate the conscience of other Christians when God has set them free.

For now, here's where I have landed on this topic: The genealogies of the Bible are not meant to be exact chronologies and are given for theological purposes, some of which we may never be able to discern until we get to heaven. There is obviously a reason the genealogy of Gen 5 is written the way it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be to date Adam-Joseph to 2300 years, and the flood to 1656 years after Adam. (I might be surprised when I get to heaven -- that's where my 10,000 year possible dating comes in below.) I'm sure there are other possible reasons the text is structured the way it is, and we can continue that research and discussion if you'd like.

The age of mankind is more than 6000 years -- probably somewhere in the range of 10,000 to 50,000 years old. The crucial event for dating Man is when God by His sovereign act implanted His Spirit into Adam to make him in His likeness. This is what defines man, much more so than his biology.

Here is a clear and unambiguous chronology from the Bible - the birth of Jesus: Lk 2:1-11. Luke is giving the "sworn testimony" of eyewitnesses after his own careful examination of the facts, and writing it out for us in consecutive order (Lk 1:1-4)

1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.


Merry Christmas dear friends.

Absolutely they can!  'Jesus wept.' Everyone knows exactly what that meant. He is probably doing it right now while watching some people twist His inspired word to selfish purpose.  This twisting of the meaning and reinventing of the concepts is what this debate is all about. God's truth is perfect but our limited human vocabulary is constantly getting in the way as well as human beings when they have incorrigable attitudes against looking at the real world which is God's other creation for substantiating evidence of their interpretation!  

For instance, today in some groups 'bad' is good, and 'good' is bad. These words are fallible having lost their meaning. The Bible is much better on this point but continually has to be translated to new languages for specific groups many times as time passes by. Is each translation infallible in communicating God's message perfectly to God's intended group?  His message was clear to Him but it seems to me that the Holy Word gets a little lost by the humsn translator and a few personal human biases along the way on a continuous basis. 

Some groups totally try to hijack certain passages like Ge 5 and 11 claiming there is only one way to interpret and add up the numbers. They claim there is only one way to interpret 'begetteth' and it is 'fathered' only while other Christian groups that extensively studied these words and other passages to support their view claim that it means 'fathered' or 'fathered a descendent of'. Some people in the YE group even openly acknowlege that begetteth can mean 'fathered the ancestor of' while insisting that the numbers can only apply to the names listed instead of the unnamed ancestors.   Are these words of the Bible infallible? No, the words mean different things to different people groups.  People fight incessantly over the centuries about the meaning.   Is the Bible still the inerrant word of God? Yes of course.  He knows and conveys perfect truth to people that struggle to understand its meaning on frequent occassion through the Bible, study groups, prayer, through nature and its laws and His divine action in the world. 

Here we have an old earth with some of His children struggling to understand what God really meant in Ge 5&11 while a scientist is desperately trying to explain the truth to them while also giving them an accurate alternate wording of the passages. Will they comprehend, maybe yes, maybe no.  My love for the lost keeps me going and ignites my passion for defending His distorted word.  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all! 

Lee

Hello ALL ...

No matter what your views are about God, the Bible, or the age of the Earth? ...
I just want to sincerely wish you ALL a very Merry Christmas!
Let's hope & PRAY that God will once again Bless our Nation in this New Year to come!
(Let's not exclude our pithy friend & Brother in Scotland as well! )
I really think that we should try to set an afternoon aside (in 2011)...
to get together (in person) at our favorite Starbucks in OC !!?
(This might be a little more difficult for those overseas!)
But ... if God has it in the cards ... a SoCal business trip may pop-up for Brother Lu?
Come on Guys! ... What do you say?

Blessings to ALL !!! ...


Bret* 2010

It looks like it's time to bring in the linguistic lawyers?
Lee ... I really did enjoy your last Post (including the humor!) !!!
I couldn't agree more about the need to give another Brother a loving shake-by-the-shoulders sometimes!
I'm also glad to see you finally let down your guard (a little) and admit honestly
about how you feel concerning Traditional Christianity!
I think we all got a pretty clear glimpse at the man behind the curtain?
It would seem that WE have been using the same Word for something ... But ...
we have two VERY different understandings of that Word's definition!

You said:
"I also need to address my passion for scripture as well, since Lucien keeps challenging my belief in its innerrancy. I have said this before and I will say it again, I love the Bible and believe in its inerrancy. I am sure that each author believed what he wrote was the truth and the people reviewing if for accuracy also believed it to be the truth. I have no doubt about this!"
& ...
"It was the best records they could produce and that was truth for them."
as well as ...
"I, like many others of my mind set, do not trust or believe certain people's or group's interpretation of some of the Bible passages, especially the ancient Hebrew text relating to the age of the earth and exact listings of ancestory."

This would clearly lead me to believe that your definition of "Inerrant" has more to
do with the author's intent ... than it does with his accuracy!
From now on ... I will be using the synonym "Infallible"... as apposed to "Inerrant"!

Because ... I not only believe that "THEY" thought they were correct when they recorded
the things that God inspired them to write down ... but that they were ACTUALLY correct
about the information that "GOD" provided to them !!!

You seem to be saying ... that the Bible doesn't mean to be filled with errors ... it just is ???
So ... just like I said before ... if your interpretation is correct? ... then the Bible is TRASH !!!
Either the Bible is 100% totally & completely INFALLIBLE ... or it is worthless !!!

It's your personal choice on how you treat God's Word ... but ...
It has NO affect on its actual PERFECTION !!!
Whether you choose to believe it or not ... doesn't change the TRUTH !!!


Bret* 2010