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

Stu ...

I'm trying very hard to be a TEAM player (collective) while defending my Team (selective) !!!
I love Norman Geisler ... and agree with him 99% of the time ... including what he said
about the possible alternative translation of the "begat" issue!

Norman Geisler put the issue this way: "The formula phrase 'and X lived so many years and begat Y'
can mean 'and X lived so many years and became the ancestor of Y'."

Lucien, myself, and most every YE out there ... understands and accepts this as a valid
possibility ... totally within orthodox Hebrew lexicon translations !!!
("A" was 150 years old when "E" was born! ... and "B,C, & D" are not named!)

Lee's (clever) invention sounds hair-splittingly close ... but is HUGELY different!
("A" was 150 years old when "B" was born ... who is an Ancestor of "E")
In Lee's version ... "B,C, & D" are still unnamed ... with "E" being the only one
identified ... other than "A" !!!

The Genius of Lee's translation is ... that it resolves the problem of there being
a numerical error in God's Infallible Word ... while at the same time breaking open
the fixed (or closed) time-line that appears to still be firmly established in the
translation proposed by Dr. Geisler !!!

The problem is ... that I don't believe it is possible to make the original Hebrew text
accommodate Lee's proposed resolution without violating the limits of the lexicon?

I hope this finally brings some clarity to our perceived differences on this matter?

Now! ... let's move on to dismantling "Macro" Evolution of ALL living things !!!


20 Bret*11

Bret -- I am very proud of you to "touch gloves" with Lee and open yourself up to the possibility that the "closed genealogy" interpretation could be arbitrary and that other good Christians might be justified in an "open genealogy" interpretation.

I am also proud that you can acknowledge Lee's gifting and his unique contribution to the Body of Christ. As you know he and I disagree on big issues as well. But I respect and love Lee as a brother in the Lord, and our disagreements do not stand in the way of our fellowship in Christ.

To address your question. Below is a list of conservative Christian scholars I consult and how they look at the genealogies. Many of them are Hebrew scholars as well.

Norman Geisler put the issue this way: "The formula phrase 'and X lived so many years and begat Y' can mean 'and X lived so many years and became the ancestor of Y'." Some of the scholars who concur with Geisler (from the early 20th century to present) include:

William Henry Green
B.B. Warfield
Charles Hodge
James Oliver Buswell
R.K. Harrison
Francis Schaeffer
Water Kaiser
John H. Walton
Wayne Grudem

I have not done an exhaustive search on this, but this list would be a good starting point for you to check out.

------------------------------------------------------

Lee -- I understand that you will have to take an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis account in order to allow Adam to evolve from atoms. We all know that the text doesn't say Adam evolved, so you are going to have to read that into it because a straight forward reading says that God (to use your terminology) just "popped Adam into existence." But why is that so hard to swallow?

You believe in miracles. You believe Jesus just popped water into wine. You don't ask questions like "How many months did He take to ferment it?" "By what chemical process did he use to change H20 into CH3CH2OH?" "Was the wine a Chardonnay or a Merlot?" We know the wine was exceptional. Does that mean that it was a 94-96 point on the WA Scale -- or was it 100? My point is, those are ancillary issues. The theological point is -- Jesus performed a miracle. He overrode natural law! So did God when He created Adam.

As we will argue in coming posts, my position is that God "popped" Adam into existence because that is the straight forward meaning of the OT text, and that is how Jesus and Paul treat it in the NT. On that fundamental truth stands the basis of our hope in Jesus Christ as Savior from Adam's sin.

I'm sure that you're all familiar with the tradition of Boxers touching each other
(fist-to-fist) with their gloves before the start of the fight ... as a sign of mutual
respect ... and to show the rest of us that this is a "Sport"... and NOT a personal fight!

I would like to take a moment to touch gloves with brother Lee ...
by saying that I was (and am) truly impressed with your explanation of how the stated
years in the Genesis genealogies could possibly be correct ... and NOT be a fixed linear
representation of the years between Adam and Joseph ... BOTH at the same time!

I did NOT think it was possible to come up with ANY possible way to reconcile this
perceived conundrum! This shows me that you are extremely intelligent and quite uniquely
creative ... when it comes to problem resolution!

If you can get some Hebrew Scholars to agree that these passages (could possibly) be referring
to the age of an unnamed ancestor to the descendant of the named person in each passage ...
I would be willing to accept this as a viable alternative explanation to this
"Age of our Ancestors" debate ... even though I would likely stick with my stance!

I hope that you can accept this as a true compliment? ... because that is the sole
purpose of my post!

But ... don't drop your guard ... as I think I just heard the round-bell RING!


20 Bret*11

• Is it possible for the account to be allegorical or symbolic as opposed to a documentory?
In Theory ... Yes?
In Reality ... Not a chance!
• How many days, months, and years did it take to make Adam and then Eve?
It took ONE single 24-hour Day!
• How did the dust get organized into Adam? Was water added, silicon removed, chemical transmutations involved to make Adam the same structure and chemistry as current humans or was he actually a dust man.
God can pretty much do anything that He wants ... with whatever He wants to choose!
Since He created EVERYTHING (out of NOTHING)... making a Normal Man out of Dust
is nothing to sneeze at!
• Was Eve a dust 'bunny' or a walking talking human rib? Was she the same size as a human rib or was the rib grown in some way at hyper-speed into a fully functioning structure of a modern woman.
Rabbit out of a hat? ... A Normal Woman from a Rib! (Poof!)
Sounds pretty amazing ... unless we're talking about "God" here!

I think these are fair questions based on your simple straight forward reading of these passages. How do you respond to your question begging statements on how these two entered the world?
They entered the World just like God said they entered the World! (Seems pretty simple?)

Do you state then that God popped them into existance from the mud and rib. In that case how do you answer the follow-up question: Then why did God start with dust if he can pop something into existance? Why not just pop him into existance like the universe out of nothing. Surely the dust has some meaning or is a deeper clue.
He chose to use a prop for the sake of making a Spiritual point!
Your Flesh comes from Dust ... and to dust it will return!
But ... the Soul that God breathed into Man is Eternal !!!

The same problem exists for Eve. Was she popped into existance from a rib? Why a rib instead of nothing if God is popping people into existance. How about a cell or a hair? Could the rib/ side be symbolic instead?
God chooses to create the way that He wants to create! Why is this a problem for you?
Maybe ... this would be more accurately translated:
God ripped out Adam's heart and then crushed it into a Woman?


PS 'NO EVIDENCE'? I gave you the best translation available for 'begat' (the English word descendent of the original Hebrew). What more could you demand for proof?
I was referring to your translation that claims the word 'begat' means:
"an unnamed Ancestor of the Descendant of" !!!
WE ALL AGREE THAT THE WORD 'BEGAT' CAN MEAN "DESCENDANT" !!!
But that would NOT allow for a numerical difference in the stated years ...
without the Bible containing some kind of an error!
(Which is OFF the table!)


20 Bret*11

... I will pull a Jesus (answer with another question).


Was Mary a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus?
(because that is what the Bible says)


And for your translation of begat:
Yes, "descendant" is correct (this is what you say NOW).
BEFORE, you had said a couple of times "descendant who was an ancestor of". This is NOT correct.
And there IS a difference between the two. So choose one and stick with it.
If you choose the first, good.
If you choose the second, then as far as I know you are the only one that translates it like that.
And no, majorities are not always right, but in this case I will trust the Hebrew scholars over you, brother Lee.

• Is it possible for the account to be allegorical or symbolic as opposed to a documentory?
• How many days, months, and years did it take to make Adam and then Eve?
• How did the dust get organized into Adam? Was water added, silicon removed, chemical transmutations involved to make Adam the same structure and chemistry as current humans or was he actually a dust man. 
• Was Eve a dust 'bunny' or a walking talking human rib? Was she the same size as a human rib or was the rib grown in some way at hyper-speed into a fully functioning structure of a modern woman.

I think these are fair questions based on your simple straight forward reading of these passages. How do you respond to your question begging statements on how these two entered the world?  

Do you state then that God popped them into existance from the mud and rib. In that case how do you answer the follow-up question: Then why did God start with dust if he can pop something into existance?  Why not just pop him into existance like the universe out of nothing. Surely the dust has some meaning or is a deeper clue. 

The same problem exists for Eve. Was she popped into existance from a rib? Why a rib instead of nothing if God is popping people into existance. How about a cell or a hair?  Could the rib/ side be symbolic instead?

Lee 

   

PS 'NO EVIDENCE'? I gave you the best translation available for 'begat' (the English word descendent of the original Hebrew). What more could you demand for proof?

Here are my final thoughts (for now)!
I don't believe that this Topic should become completely Taboo ...
but I do agree that it's time to switch gears ... and touch gloves!

(1) How do YEers get from 4004BC to 10,000 (even 15,000) BC? Lucien is committed to the Ussher chronology
but Bret is not. How do you two (and other YEers) accommodate one another?

ANSWER ... I never said 10,000 to 15,000 B.C. ... but I've read references to a "Total" age
of the Earth/Universe in some of the YE literature, tapes & books of 10k to 15k years
as being an acceptable possibility!
Sadly ... I don't ever recall any specific (in-depth) explanations as to why these #'s
were considered as the acceptable UPPER limits! (?)
The only logical conclusion that I can deduce ... must be derived from a variance in
extra-Biblical & Historical documents used to pin down the dates of events referenced
in the Bible AFTER THE DEATH OF JOSEPH (the son of Jacob) !!?
The period (what I believe to be ~1700 years) from Jacob's son "Joseph" to the
Mary & Joseph "Joseph"... is NOT numerically linked by Scripture like the first
~2300 years of Man's existence ... that is CLEARLY set in stone!
This variance seems to be overly generous (in my opinion) as to allow for the possible
inaccuracies that are commonplace when dealing with non-Biblical documents!
Therefore ... since we're relying on Historical Documents to place time markers on the
latter Data ... I'm open to the possibility that Man's most trusted Data could end up
being proven wrong ... but there are some rational limits to the possible correction!
Honestly ... I've NEVER seen a single YE claim that 6000 years is off the table !!!
Actually ... MOST (including myself) believe that 6000 is the best estimate based on the
most reliable Data that Historians have been able to piece together!
The additional years are really just a safety-net in case Man's word needs some correction! (?)
Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates,
such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC),
Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC), or John Lightfoot (3929 BC).
And ... unlike the usual downplaying of our elder Geniuses ... because of Scientific
advancements that were not available to them ... that may have altered their estimates!
This Topic has EVERYTHING to do with History ... and virtually NOTHING to do with Science!
Making their Genius even MORE relevant ... due to their closer chronological proximity
at the time of their research into this matter!
I believe that I'm in good company with these guys !!!


(2) How do each of you explain the numerous errors in the genealogies that Lee and I have pointed out
generated by your insistence on a closed chronology? (I hope we don't have to list them all again.)
It seems one would lose (rather than gain) an appreciation for inerrancy trying to explain away all the inconsistencies.

ANSWER ... I honestly believe (and totally agree with) that Lucien has addressed this
misconception of failed redundancy on God's part ... with a CLEAR and rational explanation
of the variance in completeness of the different passages!
These explanations seem to fit within Stu's referenced Biblical Dictionary!
They also are consistent with keeping God's Word Inerrant & Infallible !!!
We do not believe that there are ANY errors in the Bible !!! (PERIOD!)
I agree that Lee's explanation "would" accommodate the possibility of additional years
to the Genesis chronologies ... without creating an Inerrancy problem ... BUT! ...
there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support his translation of the "Original" Hebrew Scriptures !!!


The simplest explanation to anyone who might ask about the Young Earth interpretation of this
issue would be ... We DON'T "interpret" anything!
We read God's Word!
We trust God's Word!
It's that simple!
The Bible should be approached differently than one who would try to decipher the
Quatrains recorded by Nostradamus!

Straight-up! ... or find yourself off on a tangent!



20 Bret*11

The Hebrew word for dust (6083) is used a 110x in the OT.
It means
1) "porous loose earth on the ground"
2) "porous loose earth"
3) "fine particles of the soil"
4) (plural) "dust masses" or "clods"
Further on in the OT it is also used as:
5) "dry crumbled mortar or plaster"
6) "wet plaster"
7) "finely ground material"
"ashes" (in the context of burning)
9) "rubble" (destroyed cities)
10) "dust"
11) "stones"
12) "large mass" or "superabundance" of something
13) "complete destruction"
14) "valuelessness" and "futility"
15) "lick the dust"
16) "to shake oneself from the dust"
17) "dust" or "dirt"
18) "dust" or "dirt"
19) "dust and ashes"
20) "the earth"
21) "widely scattered army"
I would say "dust of the ground" is the best translation.

The Hebrew word for rib (6763) is used 41x in the OT.
It means
"side" 19x
"chamber" 11x
"boards" 2x
"corners" 2x
"rib" 2x
"another" 1x
"beams" 1x
"halting" 1x
"leaves" 1x
"planks" 1x
Seeing the context, I would say "rib" is the best translation. With "side" being a good runner-up.

Much better Hebrew scholars than me have opted for these translations. It makes sense. Crystal clear. The text explains creation of man and woman clearly.

Gen. 2:7 (KJV)
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen. 2:21 (KJV)
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

So man was made from the dust of the ground.
Woman was made from the rib of Adam.

Highly regarded conservative OT scholar Bruce Waltke recently resigned from Reformed Theological Seminary after appearing on theistic evolutionist Francis Collin's Biologos website saying, "If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, then to deny that reality will make us a cult."

What say you?

Let us see if this time we can debate a topic in the spirit of Ephesians 4 -- "speaking truth in love." This is not an intellectual game to be won, but rather an exercise in building unity and respect among diverse views within the church.

Stu

ps - Bret. We still would like to hear your final statement on the age of Adam controversy.

If these verses were translated as
"they devote themselves endlessly to genealogies"
we would all qualify.

sumiala wrote:Question is: who are the teachers spoken of here?
Seeing they devote themselves to endless genealogies, does this mean that I am safe with my closed genealogy view?

Not only safe -- you could even be right! But I think I'm going to have to wait for heaven to see how that could be

Stu

Although I would like to state for the record:

-I do not dismiss your (or Stu's) view. I just do not agree with it.
-Perhaps I do not always understand what you mean. This is two (or more) sinners communicating, so there are fallible brains at work. Perhaps we all can become better at clearly expressing our views. Like Jesus.
-I'd like to think that I do not misquote you, since I always endeavour to copy text straight out of your posts and put them in between apostrophes (" "). Perhaps you are of the opinion I have incorrectly interpreted your views, for this I refer to the comment above.
-Reject your logic. Well, logic, if it is subjective, is not logic at all. If you had left out the word "our" in the phrase "reject our logic" then it would be a logical statement. Now it just refers to 'your way of viewing things'. I am not intending to be funny here; what I mean is that logic is a universal thing, and if it is a personal thing (our logic or your logic) then it is merely an opinion. What I am trying to say is that everybody abides by the same rules when it comes to logic.
-Denigrate. I can see that some of my comments may be perceived as denigrating. So be it.
Fortunately I have not blasphemed, I did not swear and actually none of us have.
I think it would be a first if a debate did not incur a bit of hurt to pride, especially in a debate with four so firmly opined individuals.
In that sense I am not ashamed of the things I have stated, and wether there are scores of others reading this forum (I doubt it, but would not mind at all), I hope they can benefit from all the views and Scriptural arguments given, and quite possibly we will hear from them in heaven.

Question is: who are the teachers spoken of here?
Seeing they devote themselves to endless genealogies, does this mean that I am safe with my closed genealogy view?

I think I speak for Stu and many others of our persuasion, when we plainly stated that we are very tired of quarreling with you on this topic. We have both given you excellent justification for our position and you have chosen to dismiss, misunderstand, misquote, reject our logic, and denigrate both of us for the logical conclusions we have reached and presented to you and the views we have expressed. 

Every debate topic reaches a point of diminishing return and then everyone involved should move on. This topic seems complete to me; you had ample opportunity to express your counter-arguments to our views and any others to support your young earth viewpoint. Here is what Solomon had to say about being stubborn and endless quarreling on a topic. It would be foolish to continue this dialogue on the chronology of the Bible least we be labeled Christian dolts.    

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own opinion, but the one who listens to advice is wise.

Proverbs 20:3 It is an honor for a person to cease from strife, but every fool quarrels.

If you have another topic to discuss with me such as evolution or the human spirit I would consider it worthy of discussion. Another topic might reenergize me. This seems to be a twelve round bout with no one winning. 

Lee

Dear All,

This discussion has degenerated into one I no longer am proud to be part of or to promote. We probably have scores of Christians watching this dialog in hopes of learning more about the Bible, and seeing how in Christian love and maturity we deal with and attempt to reconcile such tough topics.

As I conclude my participation on this particular topic I do so under the conviction of 1 Tim 1:3-6:

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk.

Thank you for the insights I derived from you all regarding your understanding of genealogies and for allowing me to express my conclusions as I delved into this formidiable topic. And please forgive me for any offense I might have given any of you in my presentations.

In Christ,

Stu

Stu,

Not respecting your answers is because whatever you have said had not answered the question, but is beating around the bush.
And you do it again.
You quote some genealogies that have a number of names missing, which is a moot point.
If Adam and Seth are two reference points with a given distance between them, then it does not matter how many people you fit in between them. I think you fail to grasp this.

Lee's explanation HAS answered that question, by indicating that one of the reference points is in fact not Seth, but an ancestor of Seth, with the ancestor being the descendant of Adam.
If the 130 years does not refer to Seth, but to an ancestor of Seth, only then can more years be squeezed in.
But unfortunately, NO Bible translation that I know of, puts the "ancestor of" into the text.
Somebody has got to come up with the English terms for 'nominativus' (subject, I believe) and 'accusativus' (adject?)

Also, you still bring up Cainan, so perhaps you have missed several of my posts, including two in which I refer to articles that explain that the Cainan in Luke 3:36 was a copyist error. Have you looked at either link?

Further, you still say that the lineages come together at Shealtiel, but I have said there are Shealtiel's in both lineages, both incidently with a son called Zerubbabel. Now wether you accept this or not is your choice, but it would explain why you think there are massive problems with the genealogies. While in fact, there are not.


Lucien
(I think there is still ground to be covered, but if both you and Lee are bailing out on this debate, it may give Bret and I a chance to do the genealogies one by one and quote all verses referring to them?)

Lee

this is the third time you say you're done with me. Are you gonna stay down this time? Because you haven't in the previous two instances.
You come across as a big cry baby and you don't stick to your guns when your 'threatening to leave me'.
Don't cry, be a man!
Or is it really because you feel threatened as i have you in the corner again (see below what follows and how I quote from your posts to use your own words against you).


Lee: "Lucien wants us to believe that since more Bible translations drop the multiple descendency aspect of begat that the true meaning of of the verse is that Seth is a direct one generation descendent of Adam as well as all the others that are listed."
*Lucien: No, I did not say that.
Read carefully.
I said that NOT ONE translation (including your YLT) inserts the "ancestor of" portion, the portion that ONLY YOU have introduced.
-It is one thing to say that begat can cover multiple generation. (allowed by the Hebrew)
Seth was a (great-(grand))son of Adam / Adam was a (great-(grand))father of Seth
-It is another thing to say it can cover multiple generations AND THEN REFERS TO AN ANCESTOR OF THE PERSON MENTIONED WHICH ADDS GENERATIONS THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED BY THE HEBREW.
Seth was a (great-(grand))son of a descendant of Adam / Adam was a (great-(grand))father of an ancestor of Seth

Lee: "insult the debating opponent"
*Lucien: How have I insulted you now?
By saying "People are screwed up and introduce problems in scripture." which was actually a direct quote from your post to Bret? Or?

Lee: "inventing some phrase with poor English that the opponent never actually stated"
*Lucien: Are you referring to my words "When Adam was 130 years, he became the father of an ancestor of Seth." Because that is what you have been saying.
Or what did you mean when you said "Adam begat Seth which means he fathered an ancestor of Seth at 130 years of age." Let's hear it Lee. Because this last quote again is a direct quote out of your 'electronic' mouth (Thursday the 13th, 4.36am).
If not, then what words did I put in your mouth?

Lee: "I have never seen such ability to twist, turn, and distort the English language and Biblical concepts like this."
*Lucien: Why don't you give some examples, instead of just letting out hot air. Preferably copy some direct quotes like i am doing now. That is the best policy. Let my own words be used against me, like i am letting your words be used against you.
Half of my previous post consisted of Bible verses copied from Biblegateway. Surely you were not referring to that section?

Lee: "The beast was too big for me and wore me out."
*Lucien: calling me a beast? And I am insulting you? Funny that. Then again, you believe we all evolved from beast, so I will let you off with that one.
Anyway, I am impressed that this evolved created 'beast' has triumphed over your immense arrogance.

Am sorry to have to say this Lee, but your winging and whining might work on some people, but when you actually don't give examples from the posts you are referring to (or any examples at all for that matter), your case is nothing more than just crying "he does not buy what I am telling him and I want my mummy because i cannot convince him to believe the stuff that I believe".
Yeah, try that in a real debate before a live studio audience. No really, picture yourself doing what you have done numerous times on this forum. Do you think they will be impressed?
Grow up dude! Get in the real world.

Yours sincerely,
Lucien

As Lee pointed out, names are sometimes omitted in these genealogies. According to Mt 1:8, "Joram was the father of Uzziah." But according to 1 Chron 3:11-12, "Joram was the father of Ahaziah, who was the father of Joash, who was the father of Amaziah, who was the father of Uzziah (called Azariah)." Three generations are missing.

And, as has already been discussed, according to Lk 3:36, Arphaxad was the father of Cainan who was the father of Shelah. But in Gen 10:24 it says that Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, not the grandfather.

So either Lee is correct (and I think he is) in his "open genealogical" interpretation that "begot" can mean "became the ancestor of." Or Lucien is right in his "closed genealogical" interpretation," and I guess will have to presume that the Bible is in error at these junctures.

Also, as you keep saying, "Adam is 130 years old at the birth of Seth." But instead of looking at the English translations, let's compare that statement in the Massoretic (Hebrew) and the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew). The Massoretic says that Adam was 130 years old, but the Septuagint says he was 230 years old. Which is it? My point here being, we do not have the original autographs and have to rely on textual criticism. Our best estimate of the accuracy of the OT text is 95% at best. God did not choose to give us inerrant autographs to work with.

Lucien -- I'm sorry you don't respect my answers. I think it is to your detriment to set yourself up as having the infallible interpretation of these genealogies. You should know that you are in a small (and may I say narrow-minded) community. When you denigrate what Lee and I are saying you are also denigrating the views of the majority of conservative Christian theologians.

Bret -- I appreciate your openness to consider the broader view within the YE community, and at least respect our views. (Who knows, maybe you and I will land on 10,000BC together :cheers: ) I think, however, we're all going to be surprised by what really happened way back then when we get to see through the "looking glass" brightly rather than darkly.

ADDENDUM for Bret. From my previous post. The answers you give may not be as simple as you think ---

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 wants us to believe that since more Bible translations drop the multiple descendency aspect of begat that the true meaning of of the verse is that Seth is a direct one generation descendent of Adam as well as all the others that are listed. There you have it, majority rules the interpretation of God's Holy meaning. Research and study of the many versions or the original Hebrew phrases are no longer necessary if enough other versions say it the way we like it. There is only one way to interpret the Bible, the majority way.  Then to build on that type of illogical response, insult the debating opponent by inventing some phrase with poor English that the opponent never actually stated and then telling him he needs to go back to school. What a one-two knockout punch! I have never seen such ability to twist, turn, and distort the English language and Biblical concepts like this.  I am done, on my back and exhausted. I tried to assault this misconception on a rational and realistic basis but no logical response could be found from my opponent. The beast was too big for me and wore me out. I quit.  

I rest my case regarding the YE interpretation and strict chronology for those logical enough to perceive it.

Lee 

or Adam begat an ancestor of Seth


That is the question.
Frankly, Lee is in the minority if you compare various frequently used translations for Gen. 5:3:

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

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

NASB: When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he [b]became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

Amplified Bible: When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth.

NLT: When Adam was 130 years old, he became the father of a son who was just like him—in his very image. He named his son Seth.

ESV: When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and(B) named him Seth.

Holman: Adam was 130 years old when he fathered [a child] in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

YLT: And Adam liveth an hundred and thirty years, and begetteth [a son] in his likeness, according to his image, and calleth his name Seth.

LEE's Translation: When Adam was 130 years, he became the father of an ancestor of Seth.

I think you need to go back to school Lee. English class to be precise.
"he" refers to Adam and "him" (or "his name") refers to Seth. Nothing refers to the ancestor of Seth you want to introduce. Where do you come up with this stuff?
What Hebrew knowledge are you hiding from us and has escaped all the people that worked on these respectable translations?
And how on earth can you say Bret is not quoting what the Bible states correctly when I have just quoted 8 translations of the Bible (including your YLT) and NONE agree with you.
Honestly!
"People are screwed up and introduce problems in scripture." You are 100% correct! Stop introducing problems into Scripture Lee! There is no "who was an ancestor of" in the text, only in your imagination.

Bret,

In some versions of the Bible, Adam begat Seth which means he fathered an ancestor of Seth at 130 years of age. The word son is in parentheses just to make it clear to you that Seth is not a direct descendent. Why else would the author include the parentheses? 

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

The YLT version is very similar.

YLT Genesis 5:3 And Adam liveth an hundred and thirty years, and begetteth 'a son' in his likeness, according to his image, and calleth his name Seth.

The Bible does not say:

Bret-'Moses (or whoever?)... record that Adam was 130 year old when Seth was born ... and that Seth was 105 when Enos was born ... and Enos was 90 when Cainan was born and so on!'

The Hebrew language stated nothing like that.   You are not quoting and interpreting what the Bible states correctly. That is the problem here!  Others before you are incapable, sometimes are not being careful in their translation, and readers are not studying the material and versions sufficiently for a correct interpretation either. 

People are screwed up and introduce problems in scripture. That is why I disagree with many of your assumptions that God can get someone to provide a perfect interpretation of what He wanted to convey. A perfect set of words does not exist for all people and all times. Nor are peoples memory and intellect adequate to do the job. 

Lee  

Hi Stu

You say you "have answered your questions to the best of my ability -- and really have nothing more to say.".
Your "answers" really have not answered anything.
Lee has done a much better job in at least attempting to explain how more years are fitted in between Adam and Seth, Seth and Enos, etc.
Lee has done this by saying that the number given is not the time in years to the son (or grandson, or great-grandson, etc), but the time to an ancestor of the son (grandson, great-grandson, etc.).
Now I do not accept his explanation, and to go into Hebrew grammar, the burden of proof is on Lee, since none of the Bible translations I have read uses this construction, but at least it explains something.
All you have done is quote lists of names elsewhere that leave out names (and the only reason you know this is because SCRIPTURE gives you the info of other names), and continuing to say something like "non-linearity of the genealogies", which explains nothing.
A very weak case in my point of view. Lee's case is stronger, if he can prove that most translations got it wrong and should have inserted the words "who was an ancestor of".


In answer to your questions:

1)
Yes, I believe the 6000 years (4004 BC, like Usher).
I have heard of 10,000 and 12,000, but do not really see the point. If any other YE creationist is willing to discuss this with me, great, I will listen. But I will ONLY listen to a case based on the text found in the Bible. Other sources are nice perhaps, but not convincing to change my point of view.

2)
As far as this is concerned, I believe only Lee has pointed out a mistake (Cainan) which appears in Luke 3. As said, I do not think this was in the original text and has crept in during the copying of the text. For more info: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_41-43.pdf
If duplicates exist within Scripture of genealogies or texts, than the most extensive version is (closest to) the truth. Just like in the four Gospels the sign on the cross read something different, together, we can puzzle together what was (at least) there.
I believe when I first used this example, Lee thought I was being pedantic, but only to drive home the point that I seem to get from your writings that somehow you think summaries are not allowed, unless the whole thing is copied. Not so.
Just because and abstract of an article is much shorter and has much less info, does not mean it is incorrect.


Lucien

Stu ...

Due to some time restrictions this morning ...
I will give you a quick refresher of some things that I've already posted ...
that would seem to have already addressed your burning questions!
I will be posting an updated summary of MY positions ... in an easy to convey
format ... to those that may inquire about the YE stance ... of which you believe
to be (personally) untenable!

Here is some re-minted Gold!

Stu ... I'm NOT quite as dogmatic about the EXACT age of the Young Earth as you might think!
My belief in a Young Earth (and a Young Universe for that matter)... has NOTHING to do
with an Evolutionary fear of deep-time or multi-digit numbers!
I simply can't help but to trust that God is 2nd-to-none to anyone or anything at any time
on any topic ... PERIOD !!!
This would make Him the wisest, the most honest, & the best communicator of ALL time!
(Did I lose anybody so far?)
I honestly don't care "Who" God chose to record His Inspired Word ... because I trust
that God (through His foreknowledge) knew that the ones that He chose ... were capable
of communicating His message EXACTLY as He would want it to be recorded !!!
(Still with me?)
Therefore ... in Genesis chapters 5,7,9,11,12,21,25,35,41,45,47,& 50 ... when God had
Moses (or whoever?)... record that Adam was 130 year old when Seth was born ... and
that Seth was 105 when Enos was born ... and Enos was 90 when Cainan was born and so on!
I can see of NO WAY that adding these numbers up can be seen as Un-Scientific, Un-Biblical,
or Illogical ... in ANY rational way ???????
This can CLEARLY be done from Adam to Joseph !!!
There may be (and likely are) others that are not listed ... but were born between
these patriarchs that are listed!
BUT ... I honestly do NOT understand how the recorded ages change (even a fortnight)
because of the irrelevant people that "GOD" chose NOT to record ???
If these numbers are wrong? ... then God is either a liar or a fool!
It is THIS ... and THIS alone that motivates me to believe in the Young Earth stance!
Now! ... with that said! ... getting from Joseph to Jesus does get a little dicier!
This is why many Young Earth Creationists will tell you that they believe that the
Earth/Universe is 6,000 to 10,000 years old!
I've even seen some that extend this estimate to 12,000 ... and even 15,000 years of age!
It really doesn't matter to most of us ... as long as the integrity of God's Word is NOT tarnished !!!


That's actually a good (and fair) question to ask!
I honestly have been unable to get a clear & solid answer for this myself!
Even though the Young Earth Creationist position is immensely more unified than the
panoply of Old Earth positions out there ... we are NOT monolithic!
Since I don't know of any YE's that believe the Bible contains ANY errors ...
(Factual or Numerical)
The only logical conclusion that I can deduce ... must be derived from a variance in
extra-Biblical & Historical documents used to pin down the dates of events referenced
in the Bible AFTER THE DEATH OF JOSEPH (the son of Jacob) !!?
The period (what I believe to be ~1700 years) from Jacob's son "Joseph" to the
Mary & Joseph "Joseph"... is NOT numerically linked by Scripture like the first
~2300 years of Man's existence ... that is CLEARLY set in stone!
This variance seems to be overly generous (in my opinion) as to allow for the possible
inaccuracies that are commonplace when dealing with non-Biblical documents!


With all due respect! ... these 2 issues are perpendicular ... NOT parallel !!!
Lucien & I BOTH agree with you about adding in the extra (missing) generations!
The Bible clearly says that Adam was 130 YEARS old when Seth was born ... right?
Since men are fertile by the age of 13 ... you could squeeze 9-extra generations in ...
if that makes you feel better ... right?
But here's my question to you:

HOW OLD WAS ADAM WHEN SETH WAS BORN ???

If your answer is ANYTHING other that 130 years ... then we're ALL doomed !!!
The critics of the Bible have finally won the battle ... and the Bible is TRASH !!!

WHY DID GOD SAY 130-YEARS ... IF THIS IS NOT CORRECT ???

Remember this! ... God is the GREATEST communicator EVER !!!
SATAN ... is the father of ALL lies, deception, and confusion !!!



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?)



20 Bret*11 ... (quoting Bret* 2010)

I have answered your questions to the best of my ability -- and really have nothing more to say. However before I drop it, I request that you answer my burning questions.

(1) How do YEers get from 4004BC to 10,000 (even 15,000) BC? Lucien is committed to the Ussher chronology but Bret is not. How do you two (and other YEers) accommodate one another?

(2) How do each of you explain the numerous errors in the genealogies that Lee and I have pointed out generated by your insistence on a closed chronology? (I hope we don't have to list them all again.) It seems one would lose (rather than gain) an appreciation for inerrancy trying to explain away all the inconsistencies.