Re: Dating flood by Bible chronology vs. YEC

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 21:06:42 EDT

  • Next message: JW Burgeson: "RE: Is there a gay gene?"

    Hi Mike, you wrote:

    >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.

    No, I presume that Luke got his information directly from the LXX,
    and that a copyist not finding Cainan in the Hebrew due to its
    elimination by a careless scribe, decided to eliminate it from Luke
    as he was making copies, thus the variant texts. Dating texts is
    certainly no easier than dating flood sediments which you reject out
    of hand. To say that a copy is older than another does not
    automatically mean that it is closer to the original or has fewer
    errors. Copies went all over the place. There easily could have
    been older texts that have long sense perished containing the second
    Cainan. We'll never know for sure.

    Yours in Christ,

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 00:06:20 EDT