Re: Dating flood by Bible chronology vs. YEC

From: gordon brown (
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 20:16:41 EDT

  • Next message: Freeman, Louise Margaret: "RE: Is there a gay gene?"


    I apologize for attributing to you a statement made by someone else. I now
    understand your position to be that a copyist inserted Cainan into the LXX
    because he was in Luke (and presumably made up the the rest of what the
    LXX says about the second Cainan). Do you think that a copyist of Luke
    initially misplaced Cainan, and that is how his name appeared twice? Also,
    your argument seems to suggest that our present version of the LXX is due
    more to Christian copyists than to Jewish copyists. Is there independent
    evidence for this?

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

    On Sat, 11 May 2002 wrote:

    > That certainly would be a circular argument. And I never made it. I challenge
    > you to reread my posts on this subject and show that I did. I did not. That
    > has been Dick's position, not mine. I have steadfastly maintained that first
    > century copies of the LXX did not contain any mention of a second Cainan and
    > that mentions of two Cainans in Luke's genealogy of Christ was the result of
    > a late copyist's error since a second Cainan does not appear in the earliest
    > existing copies of Luke's Gospel. I have also said more, a few times now, and
    > quoted well respected reference works agreeing with me, that late corrupted
    > copies of Luke influenced LXX copyists to add a second Cainan to the LXX in
    > order to bring it in line with their copies of Luke.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 12 2002 - 21:09:16 EDT