Masoretic accuracy

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 07:58:59 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Masoretic accuracy"

    Well, I have mentioned that I feel our Gen 1 discussion has been thorough.
    I'll dare to go a 1/2 step further.

    These seem to be the three options that a Christian has.

    1.Day-age (we've talked this through pretty well).

    Now is the difficult part. What deserves to be #2? YEC or theologism?

    Oh wait :-). This is a post about Masoretic accuracy :-).

    Dick Fischer's book says that Abraham's place in history is pretty
    secure at about 2055 BC.

    I feel that there is information that I don't have about the chronology
    between the flood and Abraham. I've seen here and elsewhere (an
    "accidental" stumbling on a link to Answers in Genesis - that was scary!)
    that the second Cainan was not part of Luke's original writing.

    So, if we follow the Septuagint, there is 942 years between the flood
    and Abraham. Thus, the flood is at ca 3000 BC. Dick's archaeologists
    put the flood at ca 2900 BC.

    BUT, Mike says the flood was at ca 2349BC. This is extremely close to
    the MT (Masoretic text) which puts 292 years between the flood and

    Sez me, it's got to be one or the other. Mike also has his tree rings
    and his Iraq crater and info about the "mysterious decline" of
    civilizations ca 2300BC. And oh, the idea that if the flood was in
    2349 then there were exactly 4000 years between Christ and Adam. And
    oh, the fact that all modern Bibles use the MT.

    So, I studied the MT a bit (boy, was that a pain!). It seems that a
    Dead Sea Scroll points to the MT. And, it seems that the Septuagint
    is less reliable.

    And, Dick Fischer has been very quiet. It feels like I am starting to
    answer my own question.

    But does anyone know more about why Bibles use the MT?

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 12:11:39 EDT