# Genealogy Gaps and Time since Creation



## Afterthought (Aug 2, 2014)

Are there gaps in the genealogies (I'd like to discuss the second Cainan in Luke in another thread.)? This article seems to provide some good evidence that there is: Reasons To Believe : Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies? As does this one: The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete? (I link to these articles mainly because many times people have said there are gaps in the genealogies but rarely mention where they are found.)

Given gaps in the genealogies, are they relevant for determining how long ago God created the heavens and the earth, or do these gaps not matter for determining chronology or duration?

In answering the above question, sometimes appeal is made to Genesis 5-11 to show that the gaps are not relevant for that purpose. What do you think of the arguments from the first article (scroll to the bottom; there are five listed and numbered, although they are difficult to summarize due to the rhetorical questions.)? I personally find its second argument better summarized in the second article, which I quote:

"In Scripture, lists of numbers or names that are intended to be summed are typically followed by a total. For example, the census of each of the tribes of Israel given in Numbers 1 includes a grand total in verse 46. Another example is the genealogical listing of Jacob’s children and grandchildren as they prepare to move to Egypt (Genesis 46). After listing all of the names, we are told that the total number of individuals involved is 70 (Genesis 46:27). If Moses had intended the ages at fatherhood in Genesis 5 and 11 to be summed then he would have listed the total amount of time spanned. This feature is noticeably absent. Moreover, nowhere in all of Scripture is there any indication that these genealogies could be used as the basis of a chronology."


Finally, concerning filling in the gaps of the genealogies, the first article wrote:

"If, therefore, any really trustworthy data can be gathered from any source whatever, from any realm of scientific or antiquarian research, which can be brought into comparison with these genealogies for the sake of determining the question, whether they have noted every link in the chain of descent, or whether, as in other manifest instances, links have been omitted, such data should be welcomed and the comparison fearlessly made. Science would simply perform the office, in this instance, which information gathered from other parts of Scripture is unhesitatingly allowed to do in regard to those genealogies previously examined."

Any thoughts on whether this is legitimate, and why?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 2, 2014)

Robert Reymond argues for gaps in his "Sytematic Theology".

This is relevant for how many thousand years there are between Adam and us, not to anything before Adam.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bookslover (Aug 2, 2014)

I take the easy way out: since the age of the earth is something the Bible doesn't address or is interested in, I'm not interested in it, either. (The point of Genesis 1-2 is that God is sovereign over His creation and is the source of all that exists.) Old earth...young earth...whatever...

And, yes, there are gaps in the genealogies, Matthew 1 being a classic case.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 2, 2014)

As a clarification in order to keep this thread on topic, this thread is not about an "old earth" or a "young earth," but about the historical duration of time since Creation. When the Scriptures speak about something for some purpose, the details utilized are nevertheless true and infallible, although there may be some truth to not using some of them for some purpose for which they were not given (?).

I never saw the gaps in Matthew 1 as being helpful for demonstrating gaps in genealogies, since the structure is obvious and no span of time is given. Usually, the potential of gaps in genealogies that are of concern are where there is no obvious structure and where a time element is given. Perhaps you could show how the gaps in Matthew 1 are more helpful for showing gaps than I have previously given them credit?




Peairtach said:


> *This is relevant for how many thousand years there are between Adam and us*, not to anything before Adam.


How so?


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 5, 2014)

Bumping.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 18, 2014)

One reason I was thinking that the presence of gaps might not matter is because Genesis 5 gives the additional information of how long the person lived in total. This is also taking a sum and seems to me to mute the critique in the OP that the numbers were not meant to be summed (at least in Genesis 5).


----------



## Logan (Aug 19, 2014)

I know Turretin argued that the Cainan in Luke 3 was a scribal error and shouldn't be there (you're using the KJV or NKJV I assume). I don't know about other commentators.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 19, 2014)

Yeah. I think Calvin did the same. It seems to be a popular way of dealing with Cainan, including in creation science literature.


----------



## MW (Aug 19, 2014)

> "In Scripture, lists of numbers or names that are intended to be summed are typically followed by a total. For example, the census of each of the tribes of Israel given in Numbers 1 includes a grand total in verse 46. Another example is the genealogical listing of Jacob’s children and grandchildren as they prepare to move to Egypt (Genesis 46). After listing all of the names, we are told that the total number of individuals involved is 70 (Genesis 46:27). If Moses had intended the ages at fatherhood in Genesis 5 and 11 to be summed then he would have listed the total amount of time spanned. This feature is noticeably absent. Moreover, nowhere in all of Scripture is there any indication that these genealogies could be used as the basis of a chronology."



It would be redundant for a writer to require a reader to sum a total and then do it for them.

Sorry to state the obvious, but Moses gave a sum total of the years of each father, so the article would appear to be self-refuting.

Something a little less obvious is the fact that Methuselah died in the year of the flood (1656), so there is a self-consistency in the genealogy if it is supposed to be continuous and calculated as such.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 19, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> It would be redundant for a writer to require a reader to sum a total and then do it for them.


Could you explain this point a little more? While it may be redundant, the sum is nevertheless done in various places. Is the point simply that the argument proves nothing, namely, that if no sum is done, we cannot conclude whether the sum was intended to be taken or not, because it is possible the sum was required of the reader and so redundant for the writer to perform?

A good point about the sums. However, Genesis 5 gives sums, and Genesis 11 does not. From what I understand of the argument, the idea is that portions of Scripture were intended for different things and using the Scriptures as they were not intended leads to problems. Like trying to find "traces" of Flood evidence, so would be adding up genealogies to form a chronology.

That's a good point about Methuselah. If the genealogy was not continuous or intended for calculation, then we might have Methuselah surviving the flood (edit: Actually, I might have mixed my necessary/sufficient conditions here; too tired to think through it just now).


Edit: Perhaps I'm not understanding their point, but it seems "rationalistic" to argue against the genealogies because taking them to be continuous (and purposed for calculation) results in (a) triplets to begin and close the genealogies and (b) some people living longer or shorter while ancestors were still alive, e.g., from point 6 of the article:



> It may further be added that if the genealogy in Chapter 11 is complete, Peleg, who marks the entrance of a new period, died while all his ancestors from Noah onward were still living. Indeed Shem, Arphaxad, Selah, and Eber must all have outlived not only Peleg, but all the generations following as far as and including Terah. The whole impression of the narrative in Abraham's days is that the Flood was an even long since past, and that the actors in it had passed away ages before. And yet if a chronology is to be constructed out of this genealogy, Noah was for fifty-eight years the contemporary of Abraham, and Shem actually survived him thirty-five years, provided 11:26 is to be taken in its natural sense, that Abraham was born in Terah's seventieth year. This conclusion is well-nigh incredible. The calculation which leads to such a result, must proceed upon a wrong assumption.


Nevertheless, I'm not sure how to argue that this is "rationalistic;" perhaps simply that there is nothing contrary to reason in it, and so the idea is being imposed on the text? I know they try to argue from the bookending of triplets for either an intentional arrangement (like the genealogy in Matthew) or that the "triplets" were not born at the same time, and so we cannot always understand the "begats" in a literal manner.


----------



## MW (Aug 19, 2014)

Raymond, your source wrote, "If Moses had intended the ages at fatherhood in Genesis 5 and 11 to be summed then he would have listed the total amount."

If Moses intended the reader to do the calculation then it should be obvious he would not have calculated it for the reader.

Besides, your source alleges the number of individuals in one case and the number of years in another case. It is an unequal comparison. The author may have seen significance in the total number of individuals where he did not see any significance in the total number of years. So besides being redundant, the argument is irrelevant.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 19, 2014)

Ah, I see what you are saying. You're right.

Would the fact that Genesis 5 does perform the sum give reason for understanding Genesis 11 (and other genealogies) as intended for calculation (I want to say, "yes," but I don't know if I'm being hasty in applying this as an interpretive key)? Or is there something in Genesis 11 and other genealogies themselves that give a reason for calculating? Or some other principle?


----------



## MW (Aug 20, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Would the fact that Genesis 5 does perform the sum give reason for understanding Genesis 11 (and other genealogies) as intended for calculation (I want to say, "yes," but I don't know if I'm being hasty in applying this as an interpretive key)? Or is there something in Genesis 11 and other genealogies themselves that give a reason for calculating? Or some other principle?



I don't know if they were intended for calculation; but once they are taken literally it would be natural to factor them into one's chronology.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 21, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> I don't know if they were intended for calculation; but once they are taken literally it would be natural to factor them into one's chronology.


What is the difference between making a chronology and taking into consideration the biblical data, even if the biblical ages were not intended for calculation, and finding "traces" of the flood, even though the Bible did not intend for us to look for them by its description of the flood and looking for them misses the point of the events being recorded for us? I guess I'm wondering how it is permissible to use the Bible in a way that was not necessarily intended? (It seems I keep running into these sorts of questions and hermeneutical problems; if you have any recommended reading on the matter, I'd love to hear it)



Edit: Concerning the remainder of the arguments of my sources, it seems they tend to argue (1) on the basis of probability and so seem to ask, "How could this text be interpreted?" instead of "What does this text say?" (2) Tend to blur the distinction between chronology and genealogy, thinking that gaps in genealogies means the chronology is not accurate. (3) Seem to be rationalistic, e.g. they argue that parts of the genealogies look so symmetrical so it is probable they were intentionally arranged (like in Matthew) and so not complete.

I'm not entirely sure how to answer them in specifics (e.g., how might I show that they are playing with the text?), so I'd certainly appreciating hearing answers. They may have a point that "begat" does not always mean the "begetting" of only the one listed at the specific time that the person is mentioned as being begotten, but I'm not sure. Also, the Genesis 11 genealogy does not sum the fathers' ages, so I don't know if there is wiggle room there; I would think that Genesis 5 could be used to show Genesis 11 should be understood in the same way, but I don't know how to show that if that is the case.


----------



## MW (Aug 21, 2014)

Raymond, History is one of the leading characteristics of the Bible. It is the vehicle through which revelation has been given. To believe the Bible one must suppose that it intended to present a coherent view of its history, and to consistently interpret the Bible one must have some systematic development of its history and chronology. This cannot be said for geology.

For recommended reading, V. Philips Long has a volume in the series on Contemporary Interpretation which you might find helpful.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 21, 2014)

Thanks, that does make good sense. I'm not sure why those sorts of facts can be tricky to see and apply in new situations until someone points them out.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll definitely look into it.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 22, 2014)

What do you think of Bishop James Ussher's chronology which dates the Creation to 4004 BC? How did Ussher estimate the time from Creation to the Fall?

Also, when the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible differ on the dates given, which one should we believe?

Are there better chronologies out there?


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 22, 2014)

I don't know if I can give an answer to the other questions. If I remember the way Usher dated things, he basically added the genealogies in a literal manner after fixing a date known from secular history (something to do with an event during Solomon's reign)? Given the accuracy of the secular date and the ability to add genealogies in a literal manner (which certainly holds for Genesis 5, and may hold for Genesis 11), the date is probably as accurate as the secular date.



Pergamum said:


> Also, when the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible differ on the dates given, which one should we believe?


I would think we'd use the Hebrew since it is immediately inspired? Of course, if the Septuagint accurately translates the Hebrew on the dates, then either would do.


----------



## MW (Aug 22, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Also, when the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible differ on the dates given, which one should we believe?



Keil's commentary discusses the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek in Codex Alexandrinus (the term, Septuagint, is too general and obscure to be helpful). He argues that the Samaritan and Greek versions show indications of intentional changes whereas there is no such indication in the Hebrew. The commentary also contains a helpful tabulation with dates and calculations.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 22, 2014)

Thanks,

Is this what you mean by Keil's commentary? 

Commentary on Genesis - Kindle edition by C. F. Keil, Franz Delitzsch. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Is so, I will buy and read it now.


----------



## MW (Aug 22, 2014)

That looks like it, but I can't be 100% sure. I would be surprised if it wasn't to be found at GoogleBooks or Archive for free.


----------

