Noah-Lots of Water in the Oceans and Subterranean Oceans

[Job 33:6]

 

[HarleyER]

In which textual version they are meant to be literal history? MT or Septuagint?

From the New American Standard Version:

Genealogy of Jesus​

Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, 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*, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.​

​

Descendants of Adam​

Gen 5:5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.​

​

3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.​

​

6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh. 7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.​

​

9 Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan*. 10 Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters. 11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died.​

​

12 Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel. 13 Then Kenan lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters. 14 So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.​

​

15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared. 16 Then Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years after he became the father of Jared, and he had other sons and daughters. 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died.​

​

18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and became the father of Enoch. 19 Then Jared lived eight hundred years after he became the father of Enoch, and he had other sons and daughters. 20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died.​

​

21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah. 22 Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.​

​

25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech. 26 Then Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years after he became the father of Lamech, and he had other sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and he died.​

​

28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son. 29 Now he called his name Noah, saying, “This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed.” 30 Then Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters. 31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died.​

​

32 Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.​

​

It is pretty clear that that the genealogies are meant to be literal and historical information giving specific and traceable information both in the Old and New Testament.​

​

*There is an issue with "Cainan" (in Luke) and "Kenan" (in Genesis). For further study I would refer you to The Apparent Cainan Contradiction in Luke 3.36 (https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/luke3verse36)​

 

[trophy33]

From the New American Standard Version:

Genealogy of Jesus​

Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, 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*, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.​

​

Descendants of Adam​

Gen 5:5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.​

​

3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.​

​

6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh. 7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.​

​

9 Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan*. 10 Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters. 11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died.​

​

12 Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel. 13 Then Kenan lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters. 14 So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.​

​

15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared. 16 Then Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years after he became the father of Jared, and he had other sons and daughters. 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died.​

​

18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and became the father of Enoch. 19 Then Jared lived eight hundred years after he became the father of Enoch, and he had other sons and daughters. 20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died.​

​

21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah. 22 Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.​

​

25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech. 26 Then Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years after he became the father of Lamech, and he had other sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and he died.​

​

28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son. 29 Now he called his name Noah, saying, “This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed.” 30 Then Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters. 31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died.​

​

32 Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.​

​

It is pretty clear that that the genealogies are meant to be literal and historical information giving specific and traceable information both in the Old and New Testament.​

​

*There is an issue with "Cainan" (in Luke) and "Kenan" (in Genesis). For further study I would refer you to The Apparent Cainan Contradiction in Luke 3.36 (https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/luke3verse36)​

It seems to me you did not understand my question at all.

The Masoretic text and the Septuagint are two versions of the Old Testament. They differ significantly regarding the ages of the patriarchs. So my question is, which one is literal.

 

[HarleyER]

It seems to me you did not understand my question at all.

The Masoretic text and the Septuagint are two versions of the Old Testament. They differ significantly regarding the ages of the patriarchs. So my question is, which one is literal.

I'm not a Bible scholar but I have done some reading. As far as the manuscripts that have been found, there are three, the Masoretic text, the Syriac text, and the Aramaic text which only contains a portion of the scriptures. The Masoretic text is one of the most reliable and complete text. It is based upon the Hebrew and Aramaic writings. The Septuagint is not a manuscript. Rather it is a Greek translation from the Masoretic text. If there are differences in the Septuagint with the Masoretic text, then scholars often go back to the original source of the Masoretic text.

If you want to know which one is right between the Masoretic, Syriac or Aramaic text, then most scholars take the oldest text (the Masoretic) as the most reliable. This is NOT to say that the Syriac or Aramaic text are corrupt. Rather there is surprisingly little disagreement between the different text and certainly no issues that affects key doctrines. In fact, there are thousands and thousands of pages that have been preserved for us with little or no differences of these versions. The few variances that do crop up in and between the texts generally are scribal errors in numbers or where a change might have occurred from an earlier manuscript to a newer one. Where verses are not in older manuscripts but in more recent manuscripts (such as at the end of Mark or the woman caught in adultery), these are often included in modern translations but with a footnote that they are not in the earlier copies of the manuscripts.

Here is an excellent video on the Bible: Fragments of Truth (

).

 

[trophy33]

I'm not a Bible scholar but I have done some reading. As far as the manuscripts that have been found, there are three, the Masoretic text, the Syriac text, and the Aramaic text which only contains a portion of the scriptures. The Masoretic text is one of the most reliable and complete text. It is based upon the Hebrew and Aramaic writings. The Septuagint is not a manuscript. Rather it is a Greek translation from the Masoretic text. If there are differences in the Septuagint with the Masoretic text, then scholars often go back to the original source of the Masoretic text.

If you want to know which one is right between the Masoretic, Syriac or Aramaic text, then most scholars take the oldest text (the Masoretic) as the most reliable. This is NOT to say that the Syriac or Aramaic text are corrupt. Rather there is surprisingly little disagreement between the different text and certainly no issues that affects key doctrines. In fact, there are thousands and thousands of pages that have been preserved for us with little or no differences of these versions. The few variances that do crop up in and between the texts generally are scribal errors in numbers or where a change might have occurred from an earlier manuscript to a newer one. Where verses are not in older manuscripts but in more recent manuscripts (such as at the end of Mark or the woman caught in adultery), these are often included in modern translations but with a footnote that they are not in the earlier copies of the manuscripts.

Here is an excellent video on the Bible: Fragments of Truth (

).

Well, you mixed several things together and claimed several things that are either not true or cannot be supported by evidence.

For example, the Septuagint is not a translation of the Masoretic text, but of a different textual line, as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Therefore, the Masoretic text and the Septuagint are truly two different, independent textual families. Did you know that the New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint version for the most part?

Anyway, because you want to stick with the Masoretic text, I have a question for you:

According to the Masoretic text, all the people in the lineage of Abraham since the Flood, including Shem, would still be alive when Abraham was born. Why then the surprise of Abraham that he would have a child in 100 years or why the commentary that he died in "a good old age" in 175 years? That would make him terribly young.

 

[HarleyER]

Well, you mixed several things together and claimed several things that are either not true or cannot be supported by evidence.

For example, the Septuagint is not a translation of the Masoretic text, but of a different textual line, as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Therefore, the Masoretic text and the Septuagint are truly two different, independent textual families. Did you know that the New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint version for the most part?

Anyway, because you want to stick with the Masoretic text, I have a question for you:

According to the Masoretic text, all the people in the lineage of Abraham since the Flood, including Shem, would still be alive when Abraham was born. Why then the surprise of Abraham that he would have a child in 100 years or why the commentary that he died in "a good old age" in 175 years? That would make him terribly young.

Well, there are only three sets of actual manuscripts, the Masoretic, Syriac, and Aramaic. Since the Aramaic is an incomplete translation. The Septuagint by all accounts is a translation. Since it was translated, it had to be translated into Greek from one of the first two manuscripts (see A Brief History of the Septuagint A Brief History of the Septuagint). That is, unless you can tell me from what manuscript it was translated from.

As far as dates are concerned in the genealogy, there are a few anomalies with the pre-flood dates. Post-flood dates, according to the Masoretic text, Shem would have been old, but alive, during the time of Abraham. (BTW-Abraham would have been alive during the birth of Jacob and Esau.) The Scriptures teaches the early people lived a very long time but eventually time spans decreased over time. People speculate that it might have been that viruses weren't as prevalent. I don't know. All I do know is that God appoints to all of us the time to die.

BTW-I don't see this longevity as a negative but simply as a way the records may have been passed along.

 

[johansen]

In which textual version they are meant to be literal history? MT or Septuagint?

its been 1950 years we have acceptable interpretations for why they are different, that are very plausibly valid.

again, no one except in post like, 1900 american christianity had this weird fettish of declaring every letter in their kingjames bible was perfect...
it never had to be.

lot didn't have virgin daughters, they were outside his house. he never actually offered them to the crowd.
Job heard a report that his sons and daughters were killed.
he then has 10 more. for 20 total, living at the end of the story. the ot is full of such wonders. its not a lie, its a jewish story written to make you think, not teach you a history lesson. -but this thread is not the place to argue about details.

either mt everest didn't exist 4500 years ago, or noah was a local flood. you can't have both.

the sun stopped working (in the torah, the word for solar ecclipse is a babylonian word which means "sun stopped working" which later got translated as "went backwards" in 1290 bc iirc.. and we couldn't find the solar ecclipse for years because everyone was looking for a total solar ecclipse, never considered a partial solar ecclips was what happened. sure enough there was one when the walls came down. or maybe i'm mixing up the two stories...

the reason the word in the torah scrolls is a babalonian word is because our only surviving fragments of torah is from the days of babylon. not prior....

 

[Vambram]

Seeing as the two genealogies for Jesus are contradictory, I don't see those can be literal histories.

Why are Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different? | GotQuestions.org

Why are Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different? Is Matthew Joseph’s genealogy and Luke Mary’s genealogy?

www.gotquestions.org

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

 

[trophy33]

its been 1950 years we have acceptable interpretations for why they are different, that are very plausibly valid.

again, no one except in post like, 1900 american christianity had this weird fettish of declaring every letter in their kingjames bible was perfect...
it never had to be.

lot didn't have virgin daughters, they were outside his house. he never actually offered them to the crowd.
Job heard a report that his sons and daughters were killed.
he then has 10 more. for 20 total, living at the end of the story. the ot is full of such wonders. its not a lie, its a jewish story written to make you think, not teach you a history lesson. -but this thread is not the place to argue about details.

either mt everest didn't exist 4500 years ago, or noah was a local flood. you can't have both.

the sun stopped working (in the torah, the word for solar ecclipse is a babylonian word which means "sun stopped working" which later got translated as "went backwards" in 1290 bc iirc.. and we couldn't find the solar ecclipse for years because everyone was looking for a total solar ecclipse, never considered a partial solar ecclips was what happened. sure enough there was one when the walls came down. or maybe i'm mixing up the two stories...

the reason the word in the torah scrolls is a babalonian word is because our only surviving fragments of torah is from the days of babylon. not prior....

This is such a mixture of free associations that I do not know what to say to it.

 

[trophy33]

Well, there are only three sets of actual manuscripts, the Masoretic, Syriac, and Aramaic.

And Greek and Latin etc manuscripts. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe you misunderstand the word "manuscript".

The Septuagint by all accounts is a translation.

Great, we now agree that the Septuagint is not a manuscript, but a translation.

Since it was translated, it had to be translated into Greek from one of the first two manuscripts. That is, unless you can tell me from what manuscript it was translated from.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. The Septuagint is an ancient translation of Jewish Scriptures to Greek. It was translated from the texts that differ from the Masoretic text in a significant way. You can check the Dead Sea Scrolls for more details. Or, you can compare the NT quotations of the Old Testament to your (masoretic) Old Testament in the same Bible and see the differences.

As far as dates are concerned in the genealogy, there are a few anomalies with the pre-flood dates. Post-flood dates, according to the Masoretic text, Shem would have been old, but alive, during the time of Abraham. (BTW-Abraham would have been alive during the birth of Jacob and Esau.) The Scriptures teaches the early people lived a very long time but eventually time spans decreased over time. People speculate that it might have been that viruses weren't as prevalent. I don't know. All I do know is that God appoints to all of us the time to die.

BTW-I don't see this longevity as a negative but simply as a way the records may have been passed along.

You have totally ignored the point of my question. Here is my question again:

According to the Masoretic text, all the people in the lineage of Abraham since the Flood, including Shem, would still be alive when Abraham was born. Why then the surprise of Abraham that he would have a child in 100 years or why the commentary that he died in "a good old age" in 175 years? That would make him terribly young.

 

[HarleyER]

And Greek and Latin etc manuscripts. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe you misunderstand the word "manuscript".


Great, we now agree that the Septuagint is not a manuscript, but a translation.


I am not sure what you are trying to say. The Septuagint is an ancient translation of Jewish Scriptures to Greek. It was translated from the texts that differ from the Masoretic text in a significant way. You can check the Dead Sea Scrolls for more details. Or, you can compare the NT quotations of the Old Testament to your (masoretic) Old Testament in the same Bible and see the differences.


You have totally ignored the point of my question. Here is my question again:

According to the Masoretic text, all the people in the lineage of Abraham since the Flood, including Shem, would still be alive when Abraham was born. Why then the surprise of Abraham that he would have a child in 100 years or why the commentary that he died in "a good old age" in 175 years? That would make him terribly young.

"And Greek and Latin etc manuscripts. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe you misunderstand the word "manuscript"."

I'm trying to make a distinction that the Septuagint is a TRANSLATION-not the origianl text.

"The Septuagint is an ancient translation of Jewish Scriptures to Greek."

And WHAT were the Jewish scriptures written? They were most likely the Hebrew Masoretic text (although parts of it was translated from the Aramaic text).

"You have totally ignored the point of my question. Here is my question again:"

If I have "ignored" your question, then perhaps I didn't understand it. Repeating it again doesn't help.

Here is the timeline as it exists in Genesis (Visualizing the Genesis Timeline from Adam to Abraham) Yes, all the people from Noah would have been alive up to Abraham (if that is what your asking). But, as can be seen from the chart, the age of the partriachs greatly diminished after the flood.

If you are asking about the difference between the Septuigine and the Masoretic text, then please the following:

Masoretic Text versus Septuagint​

In his 2018 scholarly article, Henry Smith conducts a detailed analysis of the genealogy in Genesis 5 and 11 to determine which version retains the most accurate figures.1 He suggests that scholars have rejected the figures in the Septuagint prematurely. He agrees that most portions of the Masoretic Text have proven it to be the most reliable source, but that in some instances, the Septuagint preserves data which has become corrupted in the Masoretic Text.

Some scholars have rejected the Septuagint version because some variations occur between different copies of the text. However, this should be expected because the Jewish Diaspora and the spread of the church caused the Septuagint version to become widespread, while the Masoretic Text remained under the control of Jewish rabbis. The fact that various versions of the Septuagint exist does not mean that the original version was less accurate than the original version of the Masoretic Text.

Most variations in the Septuagint version of Genesis 5 and 11 seem to be due to scribal errors. It is possible to work backwards, using all the intact versions, to reconstruct the original text.

From Adam to Abraham

The Septuagint’s primeval chronology, with a Creation date of ca. 5554 BC, has the strongest evidence favoring its originality.

newcreation.blog

 

[Ace777]

"And Greek and Latin etc manuscripts. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe you misunderstand the word "manuscript"."

I'm trying to make a distinction that the Septuagint is a TRANSLATION-not the origianl text.

"The Septuagint is an ancient translation of Jewish Scriptures to Greek."

And WHAT were the Jewish scriptures written? They were most likely the Hebrew Masoretic text (although parts of it was translated from the Aramaic text).

So what does the oral tradition have to do with all of this?

 

[The Barbarian]

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s.

But both claim to be of Joseph. If they have to deny something explicit in scripture to make it work their way, that's a pretty good clue, isn't it?

 

[trophy33]

"And Greek and Latin etc manuscripts. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe you misunderstand the word "manuscript"."

I'm trying to make a distinction that the Septuagint is a TRANSLATION-not the origianl text.

"The Septuagint is an ancient translation of Jewish Scriptures to Greek."

And WHAT were the Jewish scriptures written? They were most likely the Hebrew Masoretic text (although parts of it was translated from the Aramaic text).

Nobody has the original text. We have only copies of copies of copies...

The Septuagint was not a translation of the Masoretic text, its basically certain after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic text is one version, the Septuagint is a translation of another version.

"You have totally ignored the point of my question. Here is my question again:"

If I have "ignored" your question, then perhaps I didn't understand it. Repeating it again doesn't help.
Aramaic text).

I do not know how to ask more clearly. Why was Abraham thinking/saying that men in 100 years can not have children, if the genealogies are literal and all his relatives since Shem were still alive and having children in basically any age?

Why was Abraham, who is said to die at the age of 175, described to die "in a good old age"? 175 years would not be a good old age at all.

If you are asking about the difference between the Septuigine and the Masoretic text,...

No, I am not. If I remember correctly, I only asked you which version of genealogies is literal, if in the LXX or in the MT, according to you. And if you are aware of the fact that the LXX was used by the NT authors.
After you, in a way, declared you stick with the MT, I asked the question about the problem with Abraham, which is an issue with the MT text, but you seem not to understand the question, for some reason.

 

[Vambram]

But both claim to be of Joseph. If they have to deny something explicit in scripture to make it work their way, that's a pretty good clue, isn't it?

No.
The two different genealogies are obviously very different from one another. So therefore, either the New Testament is contradicting itself......
OR, the New Testament in Matthew and Luke were following the ancient Jewish tradition from the Old Testament of tracing ancestry through the patriarchy or male side of the family tree. You will be extremely hard pressed to find any tracing of genealogies in the Old or New Testament where the bloodlines are done strictly and only through the female, or matriarchy side. However, the Gospel of Luke traces Mary's ancestry and does through by using the established ancient Jewish practice of using or stating the male names in the bloodline of the ancestry.

 

[The Barbarian]

OR, the New Testament in Matthew and Luke were following the ancient Jewish tradition from the Old Testament of tracing ancestry through the patriarchy or male side of the family tree. You will be extremely hard pressed to find any tracing of genealogies in the Old or New Testament where the bloodlines are done strictly and only through the female, or matriarchy side.

Which is how we know that neither of them were. They are just mutually contradictory genealogies of Joseph, neither of them about Mary.

 

[HarleyER]

So what does the oral tradition have to do with all of this?

I'm not sure it had anything to do with the Bible. If I understand your question correctly, you're wonder how things got past down from word of mouth.

Personally, I've always had a problem with "oral tradition" just from what is plainly written in scripture. I'm not an expert on history, but it seems to me that writing and reading plays a big part in the scripture from the very beginnings. There were always scribes. David wrote the Psalms. The prophets were always told, "Write this down..." Jeremiah wrote a scroll, sent it to the king who burned it up, and then he wrote it down again. They found the Book of the Law hidden in the temple and read it to King Josiah. Jesus went to the temple, sat down, and read from the Book of Isaiah. Paul sent letters to the churches. On and on.

This is not to say that everyone could read everything. It's to say there were enough people who could read and write to transmit the scriptures down.

 

[HarleyER]

Nobody has the original text. We have only copies of copies of copies...

The Septuagint was not a translation of the Masoretic text, its basically certain after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic text is one version, the Septuagint is a translation of another version.


I do not know how to ask more clearly. Why was Abraham thinking/saying that men in 100 years can not have children, if the genealogies are literal and all his relatives since Shem were still alive and having children in basically any age?

Why was Abraham, who is said to die at the age of 175, described to die "in a good old age"? 175 years would not be a good old age at all.


No, I am not. If I remember correctly, I only asked you which version of genealogies is literal, if in the LXX or in the MT, according to you. And if you are aware of the fact that the LXX was used by the NT authors.
After you, in a way, declared you stick with the MT, I asked the question about the problem with Abraham, which is an issue with the MT text, but you seem not to understand the question, for some reason.

I've been trying to find out from what source the Septuagint was translated. All I can find out is that it was translated from Hebrew, but that isn't much help in our discussion. What Hebrew?

According to the experts, the Septuagint was considered corrupted by the Jewish fathers. One of the example is the Book of Job. The Jewish fathers refused to use the Septuagint and instead chosed to use the MT. So while you might think the Septuagint is fine, this was not what the fathers originally thought. So if you are asking me which version I would choose, the LXX or the MT, I would have to say the MT.

And you are correct, nobody has the original text. However, you must not have watched the very insightful video on Fragments of Truth that explains the continuity of the Bible. I would suggest taking the time to do so.

 

[HarleyER]

But both claim to be of Joseph. If they have to deny something explicit in scripture to make it work their way, that's a pretty good clue, isn't it?

Just a slight correction. Luke is very clear that Christ was not the son of Joseph:

23 As he began his ministry, Jesus was about thirty years old and was thought to be the son of Joseph, ..., (NASB)

 

[Ace777]

David wrote the Psalms.

Yes David wrote the Psalms and one of them comes from Moses. It was an oral tradition all those years until David recorded what was a oral tradition for years. It is interesting to see what the people say that give us our Bible. There are constant changes and revisions. Yet somehow everything remains intact. Lets look at what AI says about this.

The Torah is generally considered to have been compiled between 450–350 BCE, during the Persian period (539–332 BCE). This is based on evidence from early manuscripts and non-biblical sources, such as the Letter of Aristeas, which indicates that the Torah was translated into Greek in Alexandria around 285–247 BCE.

However, the Torah's traditional attribution to Moses, who is said to have received the text from God over 40 years, starting at Mount Sinai and ending in 1272 BCE, has led some to believe it was written much earlier. However, scholars say that only small portions of the Torah can be traced back to Moses, such as Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 34:28, Numbers 33:2, Deuteronomy 31:9, and 31:22. Others, known as minimalists, believe the Torah was written after the Israelites' captivity, around 1,000 years later than the traditional view.

Notice in the Hebrew Bible there are no sentences much less paragraphs and chapters. The Bible was intended to be read and the rhythm was memorized. Sort of like music where they record the lyrics but the music itself is memorized and not recorded.