Lk. 3:36 - Mistake with Cainan?

[Achilles6129]

It appears that Luke (or an early scribe) makes a mistake in the genealogy of Christ:

"36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan," Lk. 3:36-37 (NASB)

"Adam, Seth, Enosh, 2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, 3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, 4 Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth." 1 Chr. 1:1-4 (NASB)

"18 Arpachshad became the father of Shelah and Shelah became the father of Eber." 1 Chr. 1:18 (NASB)

So how does this mistake affect Biblical inerrancy?

 

[davedajobauk]

You cannot use modern day language
to replace the language found in scriptural-texts
those, used for the compilation of the bible (?)

Son of Canaan...[sic] actually means _ child of that land

ie: I am, one, of England's sons
Literal-reading of the bible, does not provide the information recorded
in a manner that gives complete understanding, while some 'versions' attempt-to

Try not to forget, that 'it' was compiled, by the inspiration of God

 

[Hank77]

It appears that Luke (or an early scribe) makes a mistake in the genealogy of Christ:

"36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan," Lk. 3:36-37 (NASB)

"Adam, Seth, Enosh, 2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, 3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, 4 Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth." 1 Chr. 1:1-4 (NASB)

"18 Arpachshad became the father of Shelah and Shelah became the father of Eber." 1 Chr. 1:18 (NASB)

So how does this mistake affect Biblical inerrancy?

YLT
Luk 3:36 the son of Salah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

Adam Clarke's Commentary
Of Cainan - This Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, and father of Sala, is not found in any other Scripture genealogy. See Gen_10:24; Gen_11:12; 1Ch_1:18, 1Ch_1:24, where Arphaxad is made the father of Sala, and no mention at all made of Cainan. Some suppose that Cainan was a surname of Sala, and that the names should be read together thus, The son of Heber, the son of Salacainan, the son of Arphaxad, etc. If this does not untie the knot, it certainly cuts it; and the reader may pass on without any great scruple or embarrassment.

When we say Bible inerrancy we are speaking about the original autographs, the words written by the original author. We don't claim that there are not any errors now after thousands of years of handwritten copies by scribes and hundreds of translations. But because there does exist very old manuscripts, MSS, that have been used in the coping and translating, Bible scholars say that those errors are less than 5% and most are very small and do not take away from the meaning, history, prophecy, etc.
imo, you are using one of the very best modern translations.

 

[1watchman]

Yes, it sometimes appears to be errors in God's Word for us, but is then found to be man's failures. No translators were perfect. Commentary on Luke by a Bible commentator states: "The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's genealogy; and Joseph was 'son of Heli' because espoused to Heli's daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary's whose father , Heli, was descended from David". That seems to help in this, for Joseph was only a father in the care of the child.

This is in regard to lineage. Any misunderstandings are usually on the reader's part, and we need to see what the esteemed Bible teachers have found.

 

[Mark51]

Arpachshad was the father of Shelah. (Genesis 10:24; 11:12) The term “Cainan” at Luke 3:36 may well be a corruption of the term “Chaldeans.” If this is so, the original text may have read, “the son of Chaldean Arpachshad.” Or it may be that the names Cainan and Arpachshad refer to one and the same person. A fact is that the expression “son of Cainan” is not found in some manuscripts.