The timeline of the Bible

quote:

---

Perhaps you can introduce one issue from the book in question and show us its relevance to this topic?

---

Since Adimus may have left, I'll try to answer some of this. The book which he recommended, "Hard Sayings of the Bible" is authored by a number of good Evangelical biblical scholars (Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, and Brauch). Chapter 4 deals with genealogies, and echoes much of what I've been saying here.Kaiser et al claim that it is improper to add the numbers in the genealogies from Gen 5 and Gen 11 "to determine the date for the creation of the world and the creation of Adam and Eve." They note that the biblical authors never totaled up any dates before the time of Abraham, while they DID do so after the time of Abraham.Kaiser et al then ask the obvious question (also asked here by Rrhain), "What, then, is the significance of these numbers that are so carefully recorded in the texts? If they are not to be added up, of what importance could their inclusion be?" Kaiser et al give two answers:
1) the long initial numbers show that humans were "originally meant to be immortals and to live forever"
2) the decreasing ages of childbearing show "the effects of sin and death"Kaiser et al say that "abridgement is the general rule in biblical genealogies" As evidence they point to a number of things:
1) three missing generations in the genealogy of Mt 1:8
2) one missing generation in Mt 1:11
3) Jesus described as "son of David", and David as "son of Abraham" (Mt 1:1); in both cases, MANY generations are skipped. This could be rewritten in the style of Gen 5 as: "And Abraham was 100 years old, ... and he begat David. And David was 40 years old, ... and he begat Jesus Christ."
Kaiser et al summarize, "Thus the numbers of when these ancients had their firstborn function as the times when the line that was to come was given to them."Kaiser et al also note that the numbers for Terah don't add up correctly, indicating that we should avoid adding up these genealogical figures. (From Gen 11:26-32 it would seem that Abraham was 135 years old when Terah died, but according to Gen 12:4 Abraham left Haran at age 75 and according to Acts 7:4 Terah had already died at this time. Kaiser et al conclude that Gen 11 must be giving the Terah's age when he fathered his first child, but Abraham must have been a later child.)Kaiser et al point to a scholarly article by William Henry Green, "Primeval Chronology", Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1890, where issues of biblical chronologies were examined in detail.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Indeed, but do you or do you not agree that the relationship described between Adam and Seth is that of father and son?

---

As I have said repeatedly, the wording of Gen 5 does not mean this. It means that there is an ancestor/descendent relationship.

quote:

---

If Adam and Seth are father and son and there is no break in context for the rest of the section, by what justification do you conclude that none of the others are father and son?

---

I do NOT "conclude that none of the others are father and son". Some may be, some may not be. The text does not claim that they are father/son, but ancestor/descendent.

quote:

---

It isn't the words that are present, for they are exactly the same. It isn't an intervening verse, for there is nothing in saying that Adam died that would change the context of the relationship between Adam and Seth. And it isn't a verse that is no longer present in the text.

---

Yes, the constructions in Gen 5 are identical and their meanings are identical. They mean ancestor/descendent.

quote:

---

So where do you find justification for why the context changed?

---

Gen 5 is a single narrative; how can its "context change"?

quote:

---

So now that you have answered my questions which indicate that none of those things could possibly change the context of father/son relationships, this would be where you provide actual evidence to indicate that these particular passages in question do not mean father/son.

​

Be specific. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient

---

In this thread I have summarized the evidence presented by both Kitchen and Kaiser et al. You have been given references for both of their books. They each reference a number of scholarly papers, including one from Bib Sac whose reference is given in this thread.You have yet to respond to any of this evidence in a responsible or scholarly fashion. Instead, you simply ignore it because you don't agree with it. Are you capable of doing any research on your own? Have you looked at ANY of the references you have been given? You sound like you want to be spoon-fed rather than doing any of this. You sound like Daniel4140 on another thread:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Since you seem to love bare quotations, here's one from a page on how to interpret biblical passages, (Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts, Alan R. Millard:

​

"As those who investigate the history of traditions emphasize, a change of context may cause changes in the traditions themselves, but there is no controllable means for determining the presence or absence of such changes, or even a shift of context."

​

Please, let us not play dumb. This game you wish to fool around in, pretending that you don't understand what "change of context" means, is not helpful. If you do not wish to continue, then simply stop responding.

---

Thanks for clarifying this. Millard is referring to a change in the historical/cultural context of the original event or account that is then recorded in a later text. I had no idea that this is what you meant; I thought you meant a change in the literary context, which is why your questions made no sense to me.It is clear that the narrative style of Gen 5 is different from that in Gen 4. The style changes from a straightforward narrative to a genealogy with a rigid, repetitive structure. This could be described as a slight change in genre. It could be said that there is a different immediate literary context for Gen 5 as compared to Gen 4. It perhaps could also be argued that the two chapters rest on different original sources, but as your Millard reference points out, this is highly speculative and hard to prove.But I would say that Gen 5 has a single style, genre, and literary context.Is this clear enough for you?

quote:

---

It seems that if you are going to show evidence for the claim that "abridgement is the general rule in biblical genealogies", you'd probably be wise to show this in numerous places, and the focus should probably be on the OT, given what we are looking at here.
But you say that Kaiser et al cite chapter 1 of Matthew as their evidence?

​

Don't get me wrong, its an interesting point, but can we make any decent conclusions about the intent of the authors in Genesis based on the style of the authors of Matthew?

---

Good question. Yes, the culture of the NT writers is different than that of the OT writers. Both are Jewish cultures with Hebrew traditions and language. But the NT writers have an overlay of Greco-Roman culture and language that was absent in the OT.Nonetheless, the cultural context of the NT writers was closer to that of the OT writers than it is to us. Where word meanings and usage differ, the NT writers are probably more similar to the OT than to us. So it is certainly instructive to see how the NT writers used terms like "begat".I agree that it would be better to focus on the more immediate culture, i.e. the OT Hebrew culture, and also the surrounding OT cultures and languages (Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.)

quote:

---

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."

---

Exactly. Rrhain is not addressing this, probably because he has no proof of his position.I'll try to summarize our positions and evidence.Fundamental question:
What is the meaning of "begat" in Gen 5?Rrhain's position:
"Begat" in Gen 5 always means a literal father/son relationship. (If it did not, Rrhain couldn't build a timeline from the dates recorded there.)Rrhain's evidence:
1) The first mentioned "begat" in Gen 5 (Adam-Seth) was a literal father-son, as we know from Gen 4. The subsequent "begats" follow an identical grammatical form, so they must be literal father-son relationships, also.
2) The ancient Jewish calendar assumed literal father-son relationships.
3) In normal usage, "begat" refers to a father-son relationship.My position:
"Begat" in Gen 5 means a general ancestor-descendent relationship. This MAY be father-son, or it may not.My evidence:
1) There are other biblical usages of "begat" which are NOT literal father-son relationship. Zilpah "begat" sixteen individuals to Jacob, but these include great-grandchildren (Gen 46:18). The prime example is the genealogy of Matthew 1, where nearly all of the "begats" are literal father-son, but two clearly are not. (This is NT rather than OT, and is much later than Gen 5, but it is still a Hebrew culture and illustrates Hebrew usage of "begat".)
2) There are many non-literal biblical usages of "father" and "son." "Son of Abraham" and "son of David" are common. Jehu is said to be "son" of Nimshi, but was actually a grandson (1 Kings 19:15; 2 Kings 9:2,20).
3) The surrounding cultures in OT times (Egypt, Babylon) likewise skipped generations in their genealogies and used "father" and "son" in a non-literal sense.
4) Scholars of Hebrew, the Old Testament, and the ancient near east claim that "begat" denotes ancestor-descendent, not necessarily father-son.Comments:
Rrhain's timeline argument DEPENDS on there being no gaps in the genealogies of Gen 5. He is the one trying to construct a timeline; the burden of proof is on him to prove that there are no gaps so that his argument doesn't fall apart.My argument is simply that it is LIKELY that there are gaps in the genealogy of Gen 5. I don't need to prove there there actually ARE gaps; all I need to do is to show "reasonable doubt" in Rrhain's argument. I have done this by showing biblical examples, extrabiblical examples, and expert testimony.

quote:

---

What I am asking him to provide is justification that this specific narrative is using that interpretation. The phrasing at the beginning of the narrative, saying that Adam "begat" Seth, is interpreted to mean that Adam is the direct father of Seth. That this interpretation is coming from previous verses saying that Adam had sex with Eve and she had a son called Seth is irrelevant: It sets up the context about how we are to interpret the phrase, "Adam begat Seth." In this case, "begat" means "direct father."

​

All of the other generations use the exact same words, only changing the names of the people involved and the ages of progenitors.

​

Therefore, if the description of Adam and Seth is to be interpreted to mean father/son, why would none of the others mean that? The wording is identical, the following passages follow immediately upon the description of Adam and Seth, and we agree that pausing to mention that Adam died at 930 years old isn't an indication of a change of context.

​

So again, if Adam and Seth are father and son while using "begat," what makes us suddenly think that it doesn't mean father and son anywhere else?

​

If he's going to say that "begat" in this passage doesn't mean father and son, he's going to have to provide the justification for why it means it at the beginning but never anywhere else given that the context didn't change.

---

Rrhain is making a plausible argument here, but it is not a proof. He could use exactly the same logic on the genealogy of Matthew 1, and would clearly come to a wrong conclusion. Let's try it. Paraphrasing his argument above:"The phrasing at the beginning of the narrative (Mt 1:2), saying that Abraham "begat" Isaac, is interpreted to mean that Abraham is the direct father of Isaac. That this interpretation is coming from the Old Testament is irrelevant: It sets up the context about how we are to interpret the phrase, "Abraham begat Isaac." In this case, "begat" means "direct father.""All of the other generations use the exact same words, only changing the names of the people involved.""Therefore, if the description of Abraham and Isaac is to be interpreted to mean father/son, why would none of the others mean that? The wording is identical, the following passages follow immediately upon the description of Abraham and Isaac.""So again, if Abraham and Isaac are father and son while using "begat," what makes us suddenly think that it doesn't mean father and son anywhere else?"Rrhain's argument sounds just as plausible here, and he would actually be correct for 20 generations (according to the Old Testament, the first 20 actually ARE father-son relationships). But he would be wrong on the next generation. In Mt 1:8, where Joram "begat" Uzziah, three generations are skipped. Uzziah was actually the great-great-grandson of Joram according to the Old Testament. But note that the Joram-Uzziah wording is identical to the Asa-Jehoshaphat and the Jehoshaphat-Joram wording in Mt 1:8. There is no hint in the wording of the genealogy that any generations have been skipped. (Likewise for the generation skipped in Mt. 1:11.)Rrhain's argument assumes his conclusion rather than proving it. The fact that the grammar is identical for each of the "begats", and the fact that the first is a literal father-son relationship, does NOT prove that all of the subsequent "begats" must be literal father-son relationships, as we see in Mt 1.

quote:

---

Do you not agree that Adam is the father of Seth? Do you not agree that Seth is the father of Enos? Do you not agree that the text says that Adam "begat" Seth? Do you not agree that the text says that Seth "begat" Enos?

​

So given that there is no contextual change in this chain of "begats," what makes the later ones mean something different from the earlier ones?

​

Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

​

...

​

Oh, it's so much more than that. Not only is the first "begat" in Gen 5 a literal father/son, but also the second one. Seth is the father of Enos as previously established, too.

​

So we then establish a contextual basis for what "begat" means: Father and son. Adam "begat" Seth who "begat" Enos who "begat" Cainan who "begat"....

​

What justification is there to claim that when Enos "begat" Cainan, we don't mean the same thing as when Seth "begat" Enos?

​

Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

---

Again, your argument applies equally well to Mt 1 as to Gen 5. Doing this reveals the flaws in your logic, and shows that you are merely giving a plausibility argument, not a proof.Your argument applied to Mt 1 would say:
"Do you not agree that Abraham is the father of Isaac? Do you not agree that Isaac is the father of Jacob? Do you not agree that the text says that Abraham "begat" Isaac? Do you not agree that the text says that Isaac "begat" Jacob?"Yes, I agree with all of these things, both for Mt 1 as above and for Gen 5 in your original quote.Your argument would say:
"So given that there is no contextual change in this chain of "begats," what makes the later ones mean something different from the earlier ones?"My reply for the nth time: there is NO change in meaning. They all mean an ancestor-descendent relationship. Whether this is a direct father-son relationship or something more distant is irrelevant to the meaning of the word.Your argument would say:
"Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Abraham after Isaac and then Abraham's death changes it? How?"Again for the nth time, we know of no missing verses.Your argument would say:
"If the text means that Abraham was the father of Isaac, how can the exact same description not mean that Joram is the father of Ozias/Uzziah?"Here is a flaw in your logic. You assume that "begat" MEANS father-son, not ancestor-descendent. You have asserted it, not proven it. If "begat" means the more general ancestor-descendent, there is no problem with the first few relationships listed being father-son and others being more distant.Your argument would say:
"If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?"This is another flaw in your logic. Yes, it is a fact that the first few "begats" listed are father-son relationships. Yes, this is part of the immediate literary context. But this immediate literary context does not necessarily affect the word's meaning or usage. If "begat" simply means ancestor-descendent, this is fully consistent the context where with the first few relationships are father-son.Your argument would say:
"Oh, it's so much more than that. Not only is the first "begat" in Mt 1 a literal father/son, but also the second one. Isaac is the father of Jacob as previously established, too."Agreed, both for Mt 1 as shown and for Gen 5.Your argument would say:
"So we then establish a contextual basis for what "begat" means: Father and son. Abraham "begat" Isaac who "begat" Jacob who "begat" Judas who "begat"...."Another logical flaw. The context does not limit the meaning of the word "begat" to father-son. If "begat" simply means ancestor-descendent, this is fully consistent the context where with the first few relationships are father-son. The context adds more information about the first few relationships, but it does not change the claim of Mt 1 (or Gen 5) that these are ancestor-descendent relationships.Your argument would say:
"What justification is there to claim that when Joram "begat" Ozias/Uzziah, we don't mean the same thing as when Abraham "begat" Isaac?"Nothing in the context of Mt 1 (or Gen 5) would tell us that there are missing generations.Your argument would say:
"Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Abraham after Isaac and then Abraham's death changes it? How? If the text means that Abraham was the father of Isaac, how can the exact same description not mean that Joram is the father of Ozias/Uzziah? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?"The logical flaws in this argument have been shown above. The fact is that there ARE gaps between Joram and Ozias/Uzziah. But nothing in the immediate context of Mt 1 would hint at this. Likewise, there may well be gaps in Gen 5 without anything in the immediate context hinting at this.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This doesn't deny that "begat" might mean "ancestor." I am simply asking why, when we have established that in this particular instance that it does NOT indicate "ancestor" but rather "father," does it suddenly change without any contextual indication to establish that change?

---

We have NOT "established that in this particular instance that it does NOT indicate "ancestor" but rather "father."" Rather, the word "begat" only indicates "ancestor", even in this context. The preceeding narrative (Gen 4) gives us MORE information than is supplied by the word "begat." This additional information does not change the meaning of "begat." Rather, it ADDS supplemental information to the ancestor-descendent relationships described by "begat."Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There's a much more logical explanation: Matthew got it wrong. It won't be the last time a New Testament text misquots an Old Testament text. Hell, Matthew 1 goes on to forget that Jehoiakim is between Josiah and Jeconiah.

​

This doesn't mean that Matthew isn't talking about fathers and sons. It simply means it screwed up the genealogy.

---

It is possible that Matthew messed up and accidentally missed 4 generations in his genealogy, but this is unlikely.Note Mt 1:17: If Matthew had not skipped the four generations that he did, he would not have had 3x14 generations. It is unlikely that he accidentally skipped the right number of generations to make the three counts equal.It is more likely that Matthew intentionally skipped generations so that he could obtain this threefold symmetry of 14 generations each. Why would he want to do this? I can see two reasons:
1) It provides a good mnemonic. This was more of an oral than a written culture, and such symmetries were helpful in remembering the story.
2) The number 14 is significant in the context. Matthew is establishing Jesus as a descendent of David, the prophesied heir to David's throne. The number corresponding to the name "David" is 14. The Hebrews would number the alphabet (aleph=1, beth=2, gimel=3, etc.) to assign a number to each letter. The number of a word would be obtained by adding the numbers of each letter in the word. Thus "David" (daleth-waw-daleth) is 4+6+4=14.This has direct relevance to Gen 5. Note that Gen 5 lists 10 generations from Adam to the Flood, and Gen 11 lists 10 generations from the Flood to Abraham. Both counts equal 10. This suggests that the Genesis genealogies may have been similarly selected in order to force the counts to be equal, perhaps to provide a better mnemonic.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You do realize that the first sentence is specifically contradicted by the latter, yes?

---

Nonsense.

quote:

---

Direct questions. Please answer yes or no:

​

Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

Already affirmed multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Message 82, Message 62, and Message 57 until you understand them.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

You said in post #106:

quote:

---

There's a much more logical explanation: Matthew got it wrong. It won't be the last time a New Testament text misquots an Old Testament text. Hell, Matthew 1 goes on to forget that Jehoiakim is between Josiah and Jeconiah.

​

This doesn't mean that Matthew isn't talking about fathers and sons. It simply means it screwed up the genealogy.

---

You imply that Matthew ACCIDENTALLY left out these generations, believing that he was talking about literal father-son relationship when, in fact, he wasn't.But now you say:

quote:

---

Matthew was trying to pull off some numerology in order to make Christ appear special. Unfortunately, the number of generations were off, so he simply dropped them.

---

You are now implying that Matthew INTENTIONALLY left these generations out, knowing that they were not literal father-son relationships. In which case, his use of "begat" does NOT denote a literal father-son relationship and supports my position.So what is your position on this? Did Matthew omit generations accidentally or intentionally?

quote:

---

Do you not agree that Adam is the father of Seth?

---

Already affirmed multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Message 82, Message 62, and Message 57 until you understand them.

quote:

---

Do you not agree that Seth is the father of Enos?

---

Already affirmed. Please re-read Message 110 until you understand it.

quote:

---

Do you not agree that the text says that Adam "begat" Seth?

---

Already affirmed. Please re-read Message 110 until you understand it.

quote:

---

Do you not agree that the text says that Seth "begat" Enos?

---

Already affirmed. Please re-read Message 110 until you understand it.

quote:

---

What justification is there to claim that when Enos "begat" Cainan, we don't mean the same thing as when Seth "begat" Enos?

---

Already affirmed. Please re-read Message 110 until you understand it.

quote:

---

Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How?

---

Already denied multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.

quote:

---

If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch?

---

Protasis already denied multiple times, in which case apodosis does not logically follow. Please re-read Message 113, Message 110, Message 82, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.

quote:

---

If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

---

Already addressed multiple times. Please re-read Message 113, Message 110, Message 82, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.

quote:

---

I do not see either the word "yes" or "no" in any of those posts.

---

This proves that you have not read them carefully enough. Please re-read Message 57 until you understand it and find the word "yes".

quote:

---

Which is it? The questions are very simple. I don't know why you write paragraphs when a simple yes or no will suffice:

---

I have already given you a "yes" and you don't seem to understand it.

quote:

---

Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

Already affirmed multiple times. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of "affirmed"? Please re-read Message 110, Message 82, Message 62, and Message 57 until you understand them.

quote:

---

What I do see, however, is you contradicting yourself.

​

Message 110

As I have said repeatedly, the wording of Gen 5 does not mean this.

So here you say that no, Adam is not the father of Seth.

---

Huh?? Your quote is correct. Your paraphrase is not.Hint: see if you can spot the differences between these two sentences:
1) The wording of Gen 5 does not mean that Adam is the literal father of Seth. (my position)
2) The wording of Gen 5 means that Adam is not the literal father of Seth. (NOT my position)My statements in Message 110 are completely consistent with my affirmation that Adam is the literal father of Seth. This has been explained multiple times. Please re-read Message 113, Message 110, Message 82, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Why does it matter why? And even more importantly, why does it matter what I think about why? The only thing that matters is that the Bible contradicts itself

---

1) You have given two different answers which seem to be inconsistent. So which is it? Did Matthew intentionally omit names or not?
2) If Matthew intentionally left names out and still used the word "begat", this implies that he did not view "begat" as implying a literal father-son relationship. This supports my claims regarding Hebrew genealogies.

quote:

---

If they're willing to skip one person, why wouldn't they skip all of them? The story would be greatly condensed and would be infinitely more rememberable to a largely illiterate group of people to say Adam begat Seth who begat a line of men resulting in Abraham.

---

Good question. Perhaps they were trying to make it match the Sumerian King List? Or perhaps both genealogies stem from an earlier common source?The Sumerian King List has 8 generations before the Flood, while Gen 5 has 10 generations, so they would seem to differ. But as Walton says, "It should be noted that WB 444 [the Sumerian King List] does not include the flood hero, nor does it suggest that it begins with the first man."* If Adam and Noah are likewise omitted from Gen 5, the two genealogies have the same number of generations.* John Walton, "The Antediluvian Section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5," Biblical Archaeologist 44 (1981) 207.