Re: Genesis Flood

Dick Fischer (
Sun, 05 May 1996 18:54:11 -0500

At 12:36 PM 5/5/96, Glenn wrote:

>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.

To repeat: Luke was a NT writer. They wrote in Greek. The Septuagint
was written in Greek. NT writers quoted the Greek text. The Masoretic
text was not compiled until the 700's when all the NT writers were dead.
The KJ translators should have included Cainan who was an obvious deletion

>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.

You show no evidence of having taken a course in logic.

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

>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?

Look at the ages of the patriarchs from Shem to Abraham as recorded in
the Bible.

Patriarch Age

Shem 600
Arphaxad 438
Salah 433
Eber 464
Peleg 239
Reu 239
Serug 230
Nahor 148
Terah 205
Abraham 175

It wasn't vitamins, they all had Adamic ancestry. Some of their
forefathers lived into their 900's remember? The Septuagint puts
1,072 years between the flood and Abraham which is close to your
figure. If there is a problem your quarrel is with Moses not with me.

As always your friend,

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