Re: Genesis Flood

Dick Fischer (
Sun, 05 May 1996 03:49:43 -0500

Dick wrote:

>>You PRESUME the genealogies to be incomplete. I don't and St. Luke
>>doesn't. Got any saints on your side?

Glenn replied:

>Yeah, St. Luke. Luke 3:35-36: "...the son of shelah, the son of Cainan,
>the son of Arpaxad, the son of Shem,..."
>Compared to Genesis 11:11-12
>"And after he became the father of Arphaxad,Shem lived 500 years and had
>other sons and daughters, and when Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became
>the father of Shelah."
>Considering that Cainan is in the earliest manuscript of Luke and is not
>in Genesis, this would prove that the Genesis genealogies are either
>incomplete or Luke added a guy who wasn't there. From this alone there is
>at least a 50/50 chance that the genealogies in Genesis are incomplete.
>Why would you say that Luke doesn't assume incomplete genealogies. If he
>wrote what is in our Bible, then he had to believe that the Genesis
>genealogy was incomplete.

Glenn, This is a consistent problem in your methodology. You take
a little data and jump to an erroneous conclusion. Look at your
own words, "this would prove that the Genesis genealogies are ..."
"Prove" is almost never appropriate. "Suggest," "imply," "could
indicate," etc. are better terms of expression, especially when you
are using only one data point. Now, to answer your question:

When the Bible translators compiled the King James Version in 1611
they used the Masoretic text as the primary text for Genesis. They
should have at least considered the Septuagint in some instances, but
unfortunately they gave it little weight because it had become more
corrupted than the Hebrew text. What they failed to consider was that
the Septuagint had been in existance for roughly 900 years longer than
the Masoretic text. It went through a longer chain of scribes. Anyway,
the New Testament writers quoted from the Greek text, and of course,
Greek was the language of choice for the New Testament.

Here is Genesis 11:11-13 from the Septuagint:

"And Sem lived after he begot Arphaxad five hundred years and begot
sons and daughters, and died. And Arphaxad live a hundred and
thirty-five years and begot Kainan. And Arphaxad lived after he
begot Kainan four hundred years and begot sons and daughters, and
died. And Kainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala;
and Kainan lived after he begot Sala three hundred and thirty years,
and begot sons and daughters, and died."

Apparently some scribe, one in a long chain of centuries of copying,
was called to dinner, or fell asleep, or was somehow distracted and
omitted an entire generation. I pointed out in an earlier posting
that there seem to be three generations missing in Matthew. Probably
this too was a deletion by a careless scribe.

In short, the geneologies appear to be complete when we take everything
into account.

Ever your friend,

Dick Fischer
* *
* *
* An Answer in the Creation - Evolution Debate *
* *
* Web page - *
* *