Re: Dating flood by Bible chronology vs. YEC

Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 02:35:47 EDT

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "Re: Dating flood by Bible chronology vs. YEC"

    Hello Dick,

    Thank you for your reply. I always enjoy reading your posts. You challenge
    me. You invited me to participate on this list serve, and it is mainly to
    read your posts that I tune in daily.

    I have read probably everything that has ever been written on the subject of
    Luke's "second Cainan." (I assure you that this is only a slight
    exaggeration.) From all I have read I have definitely been left with the
    impression that is the consensus opinion of those who have thoroughly studied
    all aspects of this matter that Luke only mentioned one "Cainan" in his
    genealogy of Christ.

    As I mentioned earlier, and you failed to respond to, this understanding is
    supported by the fact that some ancient manuscripts, including the Bodmer
    Papyrus P75 which is "the earliest known copy of the Gospel according to
    Luke" (The Text Of The New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and
    Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger, Oxford University Press, 1992), do not
    include contain this "second Cainan." As also pointed out earlier, the Bodmer
    Papyrus P75, which is "the earliest known copy of the Gospel according to
    Luke," is also said by scholars to clearly be among the most carefully copied
    of all ancient Bible manuscripts in existence.

    Rather than accept the reading of the oldest and most carefully copied
    manuscript of Luke that exists, you prefer to rely on a copy of Luke which
    was made 1,000 years later and chosen to be a part of the "corrupt Textus
    Receptus" which "is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected
    minuscule manuscripts." (ibid) Rather than accept the reading of the
    Mazoretic Text, which is known to have been copied by perfectionists who went
    to extreme lengths to avoid any possibility of corruption entering their
    work, you prefer to rely on a translation which is widely known to be filled
    with corruptions and was probably largely based upon the Samaritan
    Pentateuch, which was almost certainly corrupt to begin with since most
    Samaritans did not hold the Hebrew Scriptures in high regard.

    You wrote: And the Septuagint was the Bible of the New Testament authors.
      were the Scriptures they spoke of.

    As I mentioned, if Luke referenced the LXX as he compiled his genealogy of
    Christ, the evidence indicates that it did not then contain any mention of a
    second Cainan. This corruption of the LXX did not exist in first century

    You wrote: By the time of Josephus, the Hebrew text had the deletion, as did
    Samaritan Pentateuch. Josephus was merely reading the Hebrew text. Luke did
    the same thing. Only Luke read the LXX.

    That's not the opinion of others. They say that "Josephus most often followed
    the LXX." And they say, concerning Luke's second Cainan, "It seems certain
    that his name was introduced into the genealogies of the Greek Old Testament
    in order to bring them into harmony with the genealogy of Christ in St.
    Luke's Gospel." (Smith's Bible Dictionary)

    You wrote: Just listen to yourself. How would you believe that a "copyist"
    seeing a "corrupted" copy of Luke with Cainan in it would take it upon
    himself to completely invent three verses

    You are kidding, aren't you? Overzealous copyists have done all sorts of
    things just like that over the years in misguided attempts to help out God.
    One similar example that comes to mind can be found in your King James Bible
    in 1 John 5:7,8. This passage of "scripture" is widely know to be a complete
    fabrication created by a copyist who thought there were not quite enough
    proof texts for the Trinity doctrine in the Bible.

    You wrote: Further, Bible scholars can't even agree on the date of the
    Exodus, let alone the flood. Some date the Exodus at 1440 BC, and some say
    1290 BC. That's why I defer to archaeologists and historians with the date of
    2900 BC for the flood.

    The Bible scholars who assign a late date to the Exodus do not do so because
    they pay close attention to the words of Scripture. They do so because they
    "defer to archaeologists and historians."


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 12:00:10 EDT