Hi Rrhain,
I apologize for jumping into the middle of this, but it looks to me like you and kbertsche are talking past each other.
It sounds to me like he is saying that the Hebrew word that is translated as "begat" means, or can mean, approximately "is ancestor to" rather than only "is father to" or "fathered."
This is functionally equivalent to me writing a story and, for some reason, mentioning that Michael is the patriarch of my clan and had children when he was 18. Micahel is the ancestor to John, who had children at 22. John is the ancestor to Mark, who had children at 25. Mark is the ancestor to me. Now, elsewhere in the story, it may become clear that Mark is indeed my father, but that doesn't necessarily mean that John is Mark's father.
The debate then becomes whether the Hebrew word can be translated that way. (Not being a Hebrew scholar in any way, I have no idea if this is true.) A side argument can become why I would mention John and Mark at all, unless they were integral to the story. Similarly, why would they mention people between Seth and Abraham if they have no particular relevance? If the only relevance is that they had sons, then all of the people between Seth and Abraham would have that same relevance and would, probably, all have been mentioned.
Personally, I find it makes the most sense that this is a list of direct decendants, as you are arguing, but I can see the argument that kbertsche is making, and I don't think you're arguing against it.
"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com