Re: Dating flood by Bible chronology vs. YEC

From: gordon brown (
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 16:58:35 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: more on information from naught"

    On Fri, 10 May 2002 wrote:

    > 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.


    I thought that Dick had adequately responded to you when he raised the
    question of how the passage about the second Cainan got into the LXX.

    To discuss what I have quoted above from your response to Dick, I must
    separate the question of reliability of OT texts and NT texts, which you
    have mixed together. You can't disprove the existence of the second Cainan
    merely by questioning the overall quality of the LXX. The question of the
    reliability of what we find in Luke remains. You seem to imply that the
    presence of Cainan in Luke's genealogy is due to the Textus Receptus,
    which I agree is very unreliable. Most modern translations are not based
    on the Textus Receptus but on much better researched versions of the Greek
    text, but even they include Cainan in Luke 3:36.

    Incidentally, there is also another interesting but probably lesser known
    textual problem in Luke 3. That is the presence of Admin in 3:33 in a
    number of Greek manuscripts but not in others. Some translations include
    him, and others omit him. Admin occurs in neither the MT nor the LXX of
    the corresponding genealogy in Ruth 4, which may explain why a copyist
    might have omitted him in Luke 3.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 11 2002 - 02:17:39 EDT