Re: Dating flood by Bible chronology vs. YEC

Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 12:29:47 EDT

  • Next message: Shuan Rose: "RE: The Problem of Liberal Theology"

    Hello Dick,

    Gordon wrote: I thought that you had said earlier that a copyist of Luke had
    inserted 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.

    I responded: That certainly would be a circular argument. ... That has been
    Dick's position, not mine.

    You wrote: Mike, I don't think you intended to say this.

    You are right. I did not. I understand your position. I certainly did not
    mean to say that it amounts to a circular argument. Or that you believe
    copyists ever added a second Cainan to Luke. When I said, "That has been
    Dick's position," I had in mind your belief that Luke himself included a
    second Cainan in his genealogy of Christ because he found the same in the
    LXX," not that a copyist of Luke had improperly done so. Sorry about the mix

    Since some of the earliest copies of Luke, including the very earliest copy
    of Luke that exists, do not contain a second Cainan, I assume you must
    believe that this was the result of either an accidental oversight or a
    deliberate corruption by these early copyists. That certainly is possible.
    But due to the great attention to detail evident in the Papyrus Bodmer (P75),
    the oldest copy of this portion of Luke in existence, I doubt that was the


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 13 2002 - 20:00:07 EDT