Matthew_Green

The very first example of an contradiction that Farrell Till pointed out in his publication The Skeptical Review was one that he believes exists between Exodus 6:16-20 and Exodus 12:40. He takes the genealogy in Exodus 6 to be a complete genealogy contradicting the time spent in Egypt as recorded in Exodus 12:40. Recently, Till has revisited this contradiction in an article published on his website http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jf...t/howlong.html and even provides his rebuttal to another solution that utilizes a complete genealogy. I have thought of an argument that can help settle the debate once and for all in Till's favor. It has to do with Genesis 15:13-16.

I tend to think of the reference to "four hundred years" in verse 13 to be a synecdoche. It's not a literal 400 years but a synecdoche which is tending to represent a generation. (A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole). Therefore 400 years can be a synecdoche for 4 generations. I tend to think that verse 16 supports this with mention of "the 4th generation". Had it been only 3 generations in verse 16, verse 13 would say 300 years, and 2 generations in verse 16 would be preceeded by a mention of 200 years in verse 13.

Verses 13-16 would be expressing a prophecy in figurative speech. If this is true, then Till would be more right than he could imagine. If verse 13 expresses a synecdoche, then it seems reasonable that the reference to the "4th generation" in verse 16 means only that 4 generations were in Egypt.

How does this help Till's case? If I am right in reading it as a synecdoche, then Till is right and the genealogy in Exodus 6 is a complete genealogy and therefore contradicts Exodus 12:40. However, if one tries to argue for gaps in the genealogy so that the genealogy is consistent with Exodus 12:40, then both Exodus 12:40 and Exodus 6: 16-20 contradict Exodus 15:13-16. In fact, I think that inerrancists are screwed either way. If the reference to 400 years in Exodus 15:13 is not a synecdoche and is literal, than it contradicts the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 and inerrancists would have to explain what is meant by the reference to the "4th generation" in verse 16.

If my argument here is right, Till actually wins either way- gaps or no gaps in Exodus 6:16-20.

Matthew