The timeline of the Bible

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 Picturehttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I understand what you're sayi9ng, but I still think it's missing his point. What he's claiming is that if all the Bible said was "Adam begat Seth" we wouldn't be able to determine if Adam was Seth's father or not. Likewise, if all the Bible says is any other person begat someone else, we can't tell if it's direct parentage or not. The only reason we know that Seth was Adam's son was that a completely different line told us it was so. What he's saying is that the description is different because the Adam/Seth relationship has more context and is more explicitly told than the others. That is one way to read that. And since I don't know Hebrew, I can't say whether that is the only way to read that or not. kbertsche is saying that the previous verses saying that Adam had sex with Eve and she had a son called Seth is there specifically because the "begat" doesn't say it explicitly, and is only to be used in that specific instance. Were they intending to say the same thing about the rest of the begats, they would have specifically said so.Again, this is not my interpretation, I'm just curious to see what your ultimate point is, and this cross arguing seems to be bogging it down.

Just to be clear. I think your reading is correct. I think this is a list of direct father/son relationships. I just think your reason for thinking so isn't 100% convincing, I'd give it probably about 95%, with the added 5% coming (for me) from the fact that if they're going to skip some generations, why not skip all of them until they get to someone who did something worth mentioning.I like to write fiction, and in so doing, I use a number of linguistic tricks and tools. One of those is misdirection, I will deliberately use a vague term and imply what it means, only to show later that the implication was incorrect. Now, I understand that should not be the case if the Bible is to be taken literally and is a non-fiction book. It should be written as clearly as possible. But arguing that the context makes the meaning of begat as obvious and set in stone as you're arguing is pushing against many centuries of writing style.

Which is exactly my point. 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.

You're missing what I'm saying. I AGREE WITH YOU. I just think you're argument isn't quite as strong as you're making it seem.I have no evidence that generations were skipped. I'm saying, IF they skipped some, why didn't they skip all? It's a point on your side. Yes, I do. That's because I think I'm not bad at writing. I have seen no evidence that the writers of the Bible were very competent.