Larsguy47

My reference is that some of the genealogies supplied are apparently through the maternal line and women are seldom mentioned in the genealogy lists. Likewise some generations are skipped when not necessary. Insight in the Scriptures, page 908 for instance notes, "As to chronology, in most instances genealogical lists are by no means intended to supply full data... Neither can genealological lists usually be taken as supplying the index of population growth, for in many cases certain intermediate links are left out where they are not necessary to the particlar genealogy cited. And since genealogies do not usually contain the names of women..." etc.

As far as Arpachshad being 35 when his grandson Shelah was born, that may simply reflect the custom of the young age of daughters when they got married and became pregnant. If Arpachshad was say 18 when his oldest daughter was born and she married early, she would have been as old as 17 when her first child Shelah was born. I know this happens because I'm only 35 years older than my first grandson. So the Bible wouldn't be disproved in the case of a 35-year-old grandfather.

In addition, as you know, the Jews had that brother-in-law marriage thing going where the widow of a brother who was childless was to become the wife of the brother whose child was considered the son of the widow's former husband. So we can presume that some generations are not direct bloodlines. Apparently that is actually the case with Zerubbabel who has comparatively different ancestors depending on how it is noted.

And in general, in those times, if we are to draw a genreal cultural concept of the male vs female gender issue, son-in-laws were consider the sons. As in the case with Nabonidus, the wife to the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar is still considered his son.

At any rate, in the above case, this line apparently went through the line of the eldest daughter, given in marriage at a very early age. Childbearing was a big deal for women, being barren a huge shame, and giving birth to a male child a huge honor.

So. In no way is the Bible contradicted. And there is no "miracle" needed to father a grandson at 35.

Wow! I'm so glad we got that resolved, once and for all!!! Thanks so much.

Larsguy47

Steven Avery

Hmm.. Jack...
Again .. earliest manuscript, please.

e.g. What do the two earliest extant Greek OT have ?
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

(And any earlier fragments .. however they do not seem to have the sections involved, per the listing by Professor Robert Kraft, so you can likely spare the effort.)

This is a perfect case of the silliness and inconsistency involved when skeptics try to use a reference like "the LXX". When spin and apikorous (with Jack rah-rahing) want "the LXX" to apply to Vaticanus they go through tremendous hoops to try to make that claim. To the point of absurdity.

When JW or Jack wants "the LXX" to apply to something else - just seek out a website. And don't be concerned if it ignores or hides the earliest evidence. All we want is a "reference".

Consistency ? Naaah.. Fergetaboutit.

And has has no idea even the century of the mansucripts.
Just give me a website !

Such confusion in skeptic-land. When it comes to such referencing we see only methodological manipulation, scholasticism of convenience. JW does it. Spin does it. And Carrier has to rewrite his LXX section but it is doubtful that he can find an analysis with proper wording that will actually support his original LXX claims.

Jack.. please, earliest manuscript reference in any language.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sven

You've been repeatedly asked to provide a reference for this, but AFAIK still have not done so. Will you ever do?

Larsguy47

Hello Dean, I'll go to the thread for the details. But please note you didn't ask when the "world" began per se. My quick chronology regarding that relates to the 6 days of creation which I consider to be 7,000 years each. Thus, in the big picture, when God "rested" for the 7th day, if the millennial reign of Christ is near the end of this last day, it will be a 7-year sabbath year, the 49th. Remember the Jews had two types of sabbaths, one every 7 years and one on the 50th, the jubilee. But the 50th was the first of the next 49. So we are close to that double sabbath of the 49th-50th after the end of this last 7th day.

So that's my chronology for the creation of the "world". But that is not my dating for the actual planet or solar system itself. I believe the solar system was "assembled" from various chosen planets already in existence and placed into specific orbit by the Creator for timekeeping purposes as stated. Those planets may have been in existence for millenniums before this. As as suggested, with regard to superimposing these creative days into the timeline, the best we can do is presume the 7th Creative Day began shortly after Eve was created, but we don't have the precise dates.

Thanks.

Larsguy47

Sven

Larsguy47

Sorry, it's one of my more common posts, I thought everybody had seen it already:




Larsguy47

Jack the Bodiless

Praxeus, I have already told you that I don't have that information. Apparently you don't either. So why ask me?

It's irrelevant to the issue here. Obviously, "Cainan" HAS crept into some versions of the LXX at some point. Apparently, Luke used such a version.

You have suggested that I "retract" a statement that was not in error, and accused me of "demonstrating the unreliability of Joe Wallack as a textual source" when HE wasn't in error either!

WE are not the ones who have chosen to cling to an untenable position: that there is one "correct version" of the Bible. You seem to be projecting your own difficulties onto others here. I am well aware of the fact that the Bible is a mess of contradictions: between versions, between different parts of the same version, and between all versions and actual reality. This isn't a problem for ME, praxeus.

My statement stands. Unlike the Masoretic, "the LXX" (though not every copy thereof) has "Cainan" in Genesis 11:12. And, after your earlier criticism of Vaticanus on another thread, I find it rather amusing that you now seem to be endorsing it in preference to other versions, including that used by the Apostle Luke himself! Obviously, Luke was a shoddy scholar!

rationalOne

Wikitimescale.org: Egypt Empire.

Runs from 3200 to 343 bce. (dates can be changed in boxes in upper left of screen)

Steven Avery

JW#1
Luke 3:36
The LXX:
Genesis 11:12 "καὶ ἔζησεν Αρφαξαδ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα π�*ντε ἔτη καὶ ἐγ�*ννησεν τὸν Καιναν"
There's "Luke's" Cainan "Καιναν" (last Greek word).
The LXX Chronology also shows "Cainan".
======================

Yet interestingly this seems to be the very same Joe Wallack who knows that this is not true, that the better evidence is that the Greek OT Cainan is late and that Cainan is "smoothed" to the Greek NT of Luke (similar to the textual manipulation of Psalm 14 matching Romans 3).

And JW#2 wrote more accurately for one of his NT "errors".

#334
There is no "Cainan" in the related genealogy of either the Masoretic text or Josephus' listing. "Cainan" is in most Greek (Christian) translations of the Tanakh but Augustine is the first Church Father to mention the name so it's likely that "Cainan" was added to Greek translations because it was in "Luke".

Notice that JW#2 is actually defacto acknowledging (but not clearly saying) that the earlier Greek OT manuscripts did NOT have Cainan and thus the evidence is very strong that Cainan was added to the Greek OT. In later manuscripts.

And this more sensible theory makes void the theories of Jack and JW#1 that Luke used the Greek OT.

So do you want to argue JW#1 against JW#2 ?

Which JW is "fine as a source" ?

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Luke 3:36 is very fine as is. The discussion of *why* Luke has Cainan is a whole nother discussion . In fact I was using this as an example of some flexibility in the Tanach chronologies, that they are not necessarily complete.

My concern here was first to try to unravel your error about the origin of Cainan by Luke (the claim that he got it from a Greek OT) - and now we see you got your error from JW#1. In this case JW#2 is a better source.

Steven Avery

True. Many hundreds of years after Luke wrote.

So that is very relevant, as you originally claimed that Luke was using the Greek OT, impossible without a time machine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless Apparently, Luke used such a version.

Apparently not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless You have suggested that I "retract" a statement that was not in error, and accused me of "demonstrating the unreliability of Joe Wallack as a textual source" when HE wasn't in error either!

Which JW wasn't in error ?
JW#1 or JW#2 ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless WE are not the ones who have chosen to cling to an untenable position: that there is one "correct version" of the Bible. You seem to be projecting your own difficulties onto others here. I am well aware of the fact that the Bible is a mess of contradictions: between versions, between different parts of the same version, and between all versions and actual reality. This isn't a problem for ME, praxeus.

You are now doubly confused. I do not use the Greek OT as a textual source and I do not believe it was the NT author source. My position is solid and consistent and is reflected in the King James Bible.

You were the one who brought the contradictory confusion of JW into this thread. I am simply straightening it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless My statement stands. Unlike the Masoretic, "the LXX" (though not every copy thereof) has "Cainan" in Genesis 11:12. And, after your earlier criticism of Vaticanus on another thread, I find it rather amusing that you now seem to be endorsing it in preference to other versions, including that used by the Apostle Luke himself! Obviously, Luke was a shoddy scholar!

Luke is perfectly fine..

And you are a shoddy logician !

Jack .. I never claimed that ANY Greek OT is reliable! Kapiche ? There is no "the LXX" and nothing is strong. They are all full of holes, junque, from a textual line that nobody can figure out and that was filled with competing tamperers, largely alexandrian-based. Same problem as in the couple of corrupt NT manuscripts. Later on the copying may have been better (ie. the Byzantine churches) but the corruptions up to 500 AD and original questionable Hebrew sources make the Greek OT essentially a textual nuttin.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are far worse on the NT than other manuscripts. On the Tanach all Greek OT is off. So no Greek OT should be used for "correction" of the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible. The most help it can be is assistance on some difficult words, as are many early writings, Jewish and Christian, and the Vulgate and the Peshitta.

And as JW#2 pointed out, Luke predated the Greek OT "Cainan".

Shalom,
Steven Avery