Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:26:42 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
>If we believe in inerrancy, Luke didn't make a mistake, and Cainan really
>existed even though he was skipped in the Masoretic.
We either have a generation omitted in the Masoretic, or one added in the
Septuigint (which Luke quoted). Looking at the overall picture, including
other scriptures (such as 1Chronicles 1) and numerical inconsistencies in
the pregenerative years in the Septuigint (compare it with other versions),
it is generally conceded that the Masoretic is the original -- especially
in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Luke used the Septuigint. Jesus quoted from it. It was widely used,
because Greek was a common language then. That doesn't mean that it was
the most accurate manuscript.
> Comparisons of genealogies in the Bible
>show that skipping generations was done quite often thus making the
>genealogies not too useful for exact chronologies.
Some genealogies, such as in Matthew 1, have deliberate omissions. You
can't use just any genealogy for chronology. But Genesis 5 & 11, with
detailed information on pre-generative years and lifespans, are clearly
meant to form chronologies. They are called chrono-genealogies.