>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:
What are the other alternatives. The only possibilities that there are
are that Luke is correct that Cainan really belongs in the genealogy or
that Luke is wrong and Cainan does not belong there. How can Cainan be
partially there? If you can clearly state a different alternative than
what I have laid out, then I would admit that you are correct.
I would suggest that you have a very flexible definition of truth and
falsity. The logic courses I took in grad school do not allow for partial
truth in this circumstance.
>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.
Upon what objective criteria should the King James translators have used
the Septuagint? And which places. Does this not allow the translator to
then make the document say what he wants rather than what it should say?
If I want an accurate translation of Aristotle's metaphysics into
Chinese, I will not use the English version found in my Great Books set.
I will go to the Greek, the original language.
>In short, the geneologies appear to be complete when we take everything
Then you would argue that a lineage of people from Abraham (1800 B.C.) to
Noah (3000 B.C.). --10 people including Cainan are direct descendants,
with no gaps, over this 1200 year period? This is an average age at the
birth of each child of 120 years. What vitamins did they take? I want
Foundation,Fall and Flood