>Gordon wrote: I thought that you had said earlier that a copyist of Luke had
> Cainan because he was in the LXX. Now you say that a copyist of the LXX
>inserted his name because it was in Luke. This is circular. It must have
>begun somewhere. The question of most interest is how it got into either
>document in the first place.
>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.
Mike, I don't think you intended to say this. To reiterate, my
consistent position is that the Septuagint correctly records Cainan
in Genesis 11 as the son of Arphaxad, father of Salah, and Luke
correctly recorded it from the Septuagint. A careless Hebrew scribe
was responsible for omitting Canain, and he is today absent in our
English Bible translations due to their reliance on the Hebrew text,
yet it still remains in Luke.
Yours in Christ,
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 13 2002 - 10:03:18 EDT