Re: Time Travel Craft anyone ?

Glenn Morton (
Sat, 08 Mar 1997 15:13:10 -0600

Hi Dario,

At 10:28 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dario A Giraldo wrote:

>Eventhough I don't want to engage in another endless argument,

These arguments have lasted over 130 years. If one wishes to have an impact
and influence people for his side, he had better be prepared for quite a lot
of discussions.

I dug up
>these quotes:
>Gen. 11:10 -Sem is 102 years old when his first born is conceived.
>Gen. 17:17 -Abraham is 99 years old when Sara (90 years old) conceived Isaac.
>Gen. 23:1 -Sarah died at 127 years of age. Abraham is 127 years old.
>Gen. 25:1-2 -Abraham sired six more children with second wife.
>Gen. 25:26 -Isaac is 58 years old when Rebeca conceived twins.

Let us divide the genealogies into a few more divisions. The Thompson
Chainr Reference bible gives the following dates

The flood, 2348 B.C.
Call of Abraham 1921 B. C.
The Exodus 1491 B. C.
David circa 1025B. C.
Solomon 990 B.C.
Exile 587 B. C.
Jesus 1 A.D.

Between the Exile and Jesus Matthew places 14 generations. Thus the average
age at birth during this period 588/14 = 42 years. This is a little on the
high side. The average life span during the 1st millenium B.C. was short.
The Encylcopedia Brittannica 1982 states ("Life-span," v.10, p. 913)

"The remarkable increase in the average length of life during the past 2,000
years -from 20-25 years to 70 years under favourable conditions--has
increased the likelihood that a person may live to the maximum limit of his
span of life."

In fact even as late as 1800 the life expectency in western Europe was only
35 years. (see Carl P. Swanson, The Natural History of Man, p. 349)

One would expect that the average age at birth would reflect the average age
of death being 20-25 years.

There are 12 between the exile and Solomon which gives an average age at
birth of 33 years which is closer to what should be expected..

generations between Solomon and Nashon, the man who helped Moses (Numbers
1:4). This means that each of these guys during the period of the Judges
must have had their first child at 83. people at the time of th Exodus were
not more long lived than we are. God said that all those people above the
age of 20 would die in the wilderness because he would make them stay out
there for 40 more years. (Numbers 14:28-34) Since 20+40 = 60 this statement
means that the extreme of life span for the Israelites was 60 years. Moses
was the exception.

This would fit with what we know from other informational sources of the
life span of peoples at this time.

>And the list goes on, Jacob was 90 when he sired Joseph. So far these four
>had an average of 87 1/4 years when they sired children.
>>There are 20 generations from Abe to Adam, who supposedly lived
>>4004 BC. A difference of around 2100 years. During this period one must
>>believe the average siring tookplace at 105 years. There are lots of gaps
>>in these records, I just believe that there are more than you but we both
>>MUST believe that there are gaps.
>Must believe in gaps ?? Why ?
>Let's use 4004 BC as a starting point:

Let me alter your chart according to what the bible itself says.
>Year Birth of: Age Siring Children
>4004 Adam 130
>3874 Seth 105
>3769 Enos 90
>3679 Cainan 70
>3609 Mahaleel 65
>3544 Jared 162
>3382 Enoch 65
>3317 Methuselah 187
>3130 Lamech 182
>2948 Noah 500
>2448 Sem 102
>2348 Flood -Couldn't resist :-)
>2346 Arphaxad 35

? Cainan ? Luke 3:36

? Salah 35
? Heber 30
? Peleg 30
? Reu 30
? Serug 30
? Nahor 29
? Terah 130
? Abraham 99
? Isaac 58

>>Look at Luke 3:36 where a new guy is
>>inserted into the genalogy who does not appear in Genesis.
>Unfortunately we don't have access to the records and lineage archives that
>Luke had in the 1st century so we can't really know why the name is there.
>It could have been a levirate marriage, but nobody in their day questioned
>or challenged the validity of the lineage.

So that gives you the right to leave this guy out of the lineage you
presented? If you leave him out, you are saying that Luke is wrong. Luke
says that Arpachshad was the father of Cainan who in turn was the father of
Selah. But if that is wrong, in your view, what does that say about the
inspiration of Luke? Including him presents a problem for the inspiration of
Genesis, It means that the Genesis genalogies are incomplete. The only way
out is to say that Genesis is true but incomplete.

If no one of Luke's day challenged the lineage which includes Cainan,
then that ought to tell you something, First it means that Cainan was
beleived to be in the lineage, Secondly, Maybe their view of what
constitutes a lineage is different from ours. Look at Matthew 1:1. It
says, "A record of the genalogy of Jesus Christ, the son of david, the son
of Abraham" This use of "the sone of" skips lots and lots of generations. Is
Matthew 1:1 false? No. The term "the son of' means "the ancestor of"
Under this definition, in 1824, Benjamin Morton, became the father of Glenn

>Yet he didn't claim it to be false and to the contrary later on he wrote
>that all Scripture is inspired and given for teaching, correcting,
>preaching and our benefit.
I agree. so that means that Luke's insertion of Cainan is also true and the
genealogies are incomplete.


Foundation, Fall and Flood