Re: Genealogical Gaps?

From: <>
Date: Mon Feb 27 2006 - 07:51:22 EST
Dick wrote:

>>>On Sun Feb 26 17:03 , "Dick Fischer" sent:

Hi Glenn:


I just picked out this one comment from your response to John Tandy:


That people are missing from the genealogies is no big surprise. The
is how many people? Can you cite a verse that says no
gap shall hold more than 5 people? The issue is not when the
lived or how old they are. The issue is whether or not they were


We have always agreed (I believe) that Adam and Noah were real people.  We have only differed on when they lived.  Did Noah live 5,000 years ago, or did he live 5 million years ago?  This should be easy to answer as the difference is enormously large.  At 5 mya Noah would have been a Homo erectus, not our species.  Right?  That alone should make one hesitant I would think.<<<<


GRM:Yeah, it should make one hesitate.  But there are two reasons to do it. First, the only event in earth history that remotely could possibly look like the global flood is the infilling of the Mediterranean basin.  If one decides that matching the Biblical description of the event with a real event in geology is of no importance, then of course one should reject it, make up whatever event one can find (including tiny floods in the Mesopotamian basin) and go with it.


GRM:Secondly, one should strive to match the facts of the genome.  It has been known since the late 90s that the nuclear genome had more diversity than could fit into an out of Africa replacement.  Like it or not, Adam and Eve have been interpreted for centuries as the first man and woman on earth and that all peoples are descended from them (the table of nations).  Once again, if we believe that listening to the Biblical account is of any importance whatsoever, ,then one has to figure out how to explain the length of time it would take a genetic system to accumulate those mutations.  Of course, if listening to the Biblical account isn't important, then by all means one should reject it and make up whatever story one wants to avoid having to put Adam back so far.  BTW, I keep going back to the MHC complex which has huge quantities of genetic variation and would be hard to fit into the human race of only 100,000 years old. 


GRM: Dick, I would say that if someone wants an account of early Genesis which has a flood which doesn't match the description in the Bible, doesn't fit the archaeological record of southern Mesopotamia and ignores the millennia long belief that Adam and Eve were the first parents, then yours is the best thing going. Don't get me wrong. I really like you and was proud to meet you at the ASA and would go eat scorpion with you any day of the week. :-) I think your theory will be more widely accepted than mine so I want to say I knew you when.




>>>>Putting Noah at the 5 million year mark and Abraham at 2000 BC puts a whopping hole in the inspired text.  I don’t know of a single living breathing person (except one) who adheres to that.  Where in the biblical narrative could we stuff thousands of missing generations between Noah and Abraham?<<<<<


GRM:Yeah, I know, my health has been a bit on the bad side lately.  I tell myself constantly that I need to INHALE/EXHALE.  But it just won't happen.


GRM: Seriously, I would rather fit the facts as I understand them than convince anyone and I think I have been spectactularly successful.



>>>>Terah is Abraham’s father who had Abe and Haran.  Haran died at Ur “the land of his nativity”.  This ties both Abraham and his father Terah to Ur of the Chaldees. No opportunity here to stuff in a thousand or so generations between father and son at the bottom end.  How about the top end?<<<<


No doubt


Noah had three sons, Ham, Shem and Japheth.  Genesis 9:8 says: R20;And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him.”  Would there be any reason to believe Noah’s sons were other than these three?  It says in Genesis 9:18: “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth.”


So at the outset Scripture prohibits extra unnamed generations between either Abraham and his father or between Noah and his three sons.  What about the next generation from Noah’s sons?  Check out this narrative.



And so it goes with other grandsons and great grandsons of Noah.  Many of Noah’s immediate descendants named in Genesis eleven have ties to identifiable history in the post flood period.


The land of Canaan that Abraham sought ties Abraham and Noah to the same general time frame.  Ebla is the oldest Canaanite city and dates to roughly 3000 BC.  The clay tablets found there were written in a Semitic tongue.


Further, in Ezek. 10:2: "Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.”  Meshech and Tubal are two of Japheth’s sons, Noah’s grandsons (Gen. 10:2).  Their descendants causing trouble for millions of years and through speciation perhaps?


The Elamites destroyed Sumer.  They were named in the “Lamentations over the destruction of the city of Ur.R21;  Elam was another of Noah’s grandsons, first born of Shem.


I can cite further examples, but why belabor the point?  Scripture disallows extra generations between Noah and his immediate grandsons.  And his immediate grandsons and great grandsons can be tied to relatively recent history.  It’s creative perhaps, but if we are to have any confidence that Genesis is real history, it most assuredly is recent history.<<<<


GRM: I didn't realize you were such a literalist.  One learns something every day.  I also guess you didn't read my post on my own genealogy which has people siring people they couldn't have.  It is apparently a fact of ancient genealogies.  Maybe you should read that and address that point.  Also, know that there are demonstrable gaps in the genealogies which are filled in at other places.  the Hebrew word 'ben' means son of. Jesus was Yeshua ben David, Son of David, but the two never met on earth.


Received on Mon Feb 27 07:55:29 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 27 2006 - 07:55:31 EST