Where did the Egyptians come from ?

Hi Peter,
I will at some stage try to return to the other thread. Quite busy at the moment.
But a question here. How are you arriving at 367 years?
Which chronology of the post flood patriarchs are you using?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I added it up in Genesis in the KJV.

---

King james may be the most corrupt for genesis, as it uses the massoretic text. Check out the articles on the other thread.Later............sean

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I had a quick check of different versions of the Bible using the
BlueNote website ... I cannot see any particular discreprancy with
the durations that I have used from KJV to work out the
time between the Flood and the existence of Egyptian pharoahs.

---

All english versions now use the massoretic text. The LXX (which tends to agree alot more with the DSS) reads differently. The LXX agrees with lukes geneology whilst the massoretic text does not!
Some early christians (such as Justin martyr in his 'dialogue with trypho' accused the jews of changing the hebrew text.It's quite a complicated subject, too much to go into in a short space here. (and the texts agree 99% of the time). But a good place to start might be the links I provided on the other thread.
If you have any particular questions I will try to help.p.s. I will disclose I am a firm believer in the reliability of the OT in it's historical content, but as with all ancient texts they never come to us perfectly. one of the few obviously imperfect parts are the various versions of genesis 5 and 11.sean

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
According the the Hebrew version of the Bible, there
is STILL only 367 years between the Flood and a
Pharoah in Egypt.

​

So my original question remains (assuming none is going
to dispute a genealogy from Hebrew sources).

---

OK you got me! I will dispute it!
Examining these texts can be complicated so I will try to keep it simple.
The hebrew text is the most corrupt for the following reasons.
1. The cuurent text was compiled or standardised by jews in ther middle ages.
2. This text disagrees most with the dead sea scrolls
3. We know the actual geneology section is corrupt because it differs from that used to complie Lukes gospel.
4.Justin Martyr in the second century accuses the jews of corrupting their version (although why they would do it to the geneologies is a mystery )
5. Josephus (for the most part) disagrees with the masoretic text here6. Justin martyr disagrees with the timelien of the massoretic text.
7. Africanus and eusebius do as well
8. Living trees predate the flood in the massoretic version (assuming the flood was global)In other words NO early source agrees with this timeline! (apart perhaps from josephus who for the most part disagres with it).One must ask , how can we possibly go with this version?
It is tempting only because it is written in hebrew. But it is illogical to therefore assume it is the truest..Sean

​

[This message has been edited by dreaded s flynn, 06-12-2002]

The question, unfortunately remains, which version do we believe.
If the claims that the Jews changed their geneologies is correct ... how does that help us decide whether anyone else did or didn't modify
their texts ?If there is that much disagreement between versions of the
Bible ... how can we hold it as inerrant ?[/B][/QUOTE]the vast majority of the texts agree all the time. Jeremiah seesm to have a long and a short version, as does a part of samuel.
Why the geneologies are different is a real mystery (to me anyway).
One point I didn't mention (although I did say it gets complicated) is that the massoretic text seem to have peculiar markings in the text at this point, which some have suggested may indicate that they at least knew of the variation.
Either way the story of mans predicament and Gods solution is clear in any version.Later................sea