Hi, Christian.
Christian writes:
1) The Bible geneologies are fictitious.
Highly unlikely since the people back then knew who their relatives were and if the geneologies were fictitious, people would've had something to say about it.
And where would they have recorded what they had to say about it? I don't think those comments would make it into the Bible. I'm sure you already appreciate the irony of attempting to refute someone who has something to say about it with this particular unsupported assertion.
Also, DNA tests have shown that a significant percentage of presumed paternity is in error, as I'm sure it was then. Your husbands 14 apparent forefathers almost certainly include a cuckold or two; the genes of a female ancestor may be all that keeps him in that family tree.
Simplifying the geneologies is useful to show more clearly who the ancestors were.
You mean, "who the ancestors {considered important} were," since I presume that when you say your husband traces "great-great-great...grandparent and ending with himself" you mean "grandfather."
Purely on a logical basis, I don't understand why a fraction of the truth is clearer than the full truth.
™ Version 4.2
