Incredible genealogies

[rmwilliamsll]

No. The Book of Enoch is older than the Epistle of Jude. If I recall, a copy of Enoch was recovered from among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

just a fragment.
picture at:
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/enoch.html

 

[Driver]

Don't most believe that the Epistle of Jude was written about AD 66 or 70? http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/jude.htm

Also why was the Epistle of Jude included in the Canon of Scripture, but not the Book of Enoch?

 

[Willtor]

Don't most believe that the Epistle of Jude was written about AD 66 or 70? http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/jude.htm

Also why was the Epistle of Jude included in the Canon of Scripture, but not the Book of Enoch?

It really depends on your denomination. Enoch is included in the canon of some Orthodox Churches (Ethiopian Orthodox, at least). It was certainly widely read in the early Church. I don't really know why it wasn't included by the rest.

 

[shernren]

Several possible reasons:
A. Certain names were lost over the centuries of oral transmission.
B. Names were deliberately left out in order to make the lists shorter and thus easier to memorise
C. Names were consciously left out because the writer considered them superfluous

I suspect these mechanisms all played a part.

Observe that Matthew makes a point that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ. 14 = 2 x 7 has clear numerological significance. Divine providence, or inspired editing?

 

[jereth]

My reason is their wording, in which the record of births and deaths is specific to the year. For example:

"When Methuselah had lived a hundred and eighty-seven years, he became the father of Lamech. Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died."

Instead of being vague, the text seems to go out of its way to be specific.

Hi Chetsinger,
Yes, the text certainly is specific. However, if you look at a more literal translation, you find the wording is slightly (but significantly) different. Compare the bolded words above and below.

Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father [ancestor] of Lamech. Then Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years after he became the father [ancestor] of Lamech, and he had other sons and daughters.
So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and he died.

So you see, there is no problem with inserting additional generations. The specificity of details has to do with the lifespans of the individual men, not the timespan of the genealogy as a whole.

BTW, Creationists generally do not assert that there are no gaps.

There are varying views. Some (eg. AiG) insist that the genealogies are comprehensive, and the age of the earth is therefore no more than about 6000 years. Other YECists acknowledge the possibility of omitted generations, and say that the earth could be as old as 10,000 years.

See this article by AiG leader Jonathan Sarfati, arguing for no missing generations:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n3_Chronogenealogies.pdf

And another AiG article endorsing Bishop Ussher:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/archbishop.asp

Observe that Matthew makes a point that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ. 14 = 2 x 7 has clear numerological significance. Divine providence, or inspired editing?

Perhaps a bit of both

This just goes to show that for ancient Hebrew writers, precision of data did not have the high priority that we give it today. To subject the genealogies of Genesis to our modern, anally retentive standards is a big mistake.

 

[Assyrian]

Genesis 6:1 When adam began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of adam were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in adam forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of adam and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of adam was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made adam on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out adam whom I have created from the face of the land, adam and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."

We miss out reading in the bible in English, but if we look at the Hebrew word/name adam further on in Genesis, it looks as though Adam only lived to 120 and drowned in the flood...

 

[ChetSinger]

Hi Chetsinger,
So you see, there is no problem with inserting additional generations. The specificity of details has to do with the lifespans of the individual men, not the timespan of the genealogy as a whole.

OK, if you're arguing for longer time periods, how do you explain this passage:

When Lamech had lived a hundred and eighty-two years, he became the father of a son, and called his name Noah, saying, "Out of the ground which the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands."

Here, Lamech clearly saw Noah while still alive, giving him his name. How does this fit in with your long-ages idea?

 

[jereth]

Here, Lamech clearly saw Noah while still alive, giving him his name. How does this fit in with your long-ages idea?

Thanks for the question. Certainly there are portions of the genealogies where missing generations aren't allowed. The Lamech-Noah-Shem-Arpachshad sequence is one such portion. Obviously also Terah and Abraham were literal father and son. However, that still leaves plenty of room to insert missing generations.

The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 and the genealogy of Ezra in Ezra 7 are good analogies -- some of the generations are continous, and other parts skip generations.

 

[Proselyte]

Do any of you TEs believe that people actually lived as long as those incredible life spans mentioned in the Bible? I do, though I am not a TE.

 

[jereth]

Do any of you TEs believe that people actually lived as long as those incredible life spans mentioned in the Bible? I do, though I am not a TE.

There are a number of possible explanations for the long lifespans:
1. They represent actual ages of the men
2. The numbers are somehow symbolic
3. The numbers represent the length of dynasties, rather than the ages of individual men
4. The lifespans are legendary/exaggerated

It's impossible for anyone alive today to know for sure what the meaning of these numbers are. To be dogmatic about any of these 4 options (or others) would be presumptuous.

 

[Willtor]

There are a number of possible explanations for the long lifespans:
1. They represent actual ages of the men
2. The numbers are somehow symbolic
3. The numbers represent the length of dynasties, rather than the ages of individual men
4. The lifespans are legendary/exaggerated

It's impossible for anyone alive today to know for sure what the meaning of these numbers are. To be dogmatic about any of these 4 options (or others) would be presumptuous.

Perhaps. However, certain explanations more readily lend themselves to particular interepretations than others, so I don't think it's inappropriate to adopt a stance. One cannot start from one of these positions, but debate must focus on the views that led to them.

 

[jereth]

Perhaps. However, certain explanations more readily lend themselves to particular interepretations than others, so I don't think it's inappropriate to adopt a stance. One cannot start from one of these positions, but debate must focus on the views that led to them.

Sure thing, it's okay to hold a position tentatively. And it's appropriate to weigh up the views against each other. I think that's what most non-YECists do.

 

[Floodnut]

A few observations:

None of those pre-Flood ancestors (besides Noah) surivied the year of the Flood.

Enoch happened to have lived 365 years, which happens to match (approximately) to a solar day, except in years rather than days.

Lamech lived 777 years, Mathusela 969 years. It looks like they died in the year of the Flood (either by natural causes or in the Flood).

Enoch and Noah both are said in Scripture to have "walked with God".

Lamech, the father of Noah, died "young" about FIVE YEARS BEFORE the flood. Methuselah died in the year of the Flood, not necessarily "in the Flood." His name could be prophetic, "When He dies (methu) it is cast forth (salah), i.e. when he dies the Flood is Sent.
The amazing observations from the geneaology recorded in inspired Scripture point to the literal intent of them, and confirm the reliability of the oral transmission of the primeval records of Genesis to Abraham and Jacob and Josepsh and finally to Moses, who under divine inspration recorded the truth in the infallible record of Genesis. I remain YEC.

 

[Driver]

Lamech, the father of Noah, died "young" about FIVE YEARS BEFORE the flood.

Thanks, I came up with that calcuation, too, back at post 11. A lifetime of 777 years seems very amazing to us today, and quite lucky, too

 

[Floodnut]

Thanks, I came up with that calcuation, too, back at post 11. A lifetime of 777 years seems very amazing to us today, and quite lucky, too

I am working on a graphic novel as a seed for a movie script, so I have tried to work out the relationships between the various people involved. Noah was 500 when Japeth was born, then Shem was born a year or two later, followed by Ham the youngest, who may have been as much as ten years younger than the other two sons. By his conduct he seems to have been considerably younger than the older two sons.
Then for me the big question is where in such a wicked world did Noah find suitable wives for his sons?

 

[shernren]

There is a very obvious and perverse answer which I will not explicitly state. But I doubt that was what Noah would have done. I really don't know.