The Flood, 3000 BC or before.

Discussion in 'OT Historical Books' started by Pergamum, Jan 27, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)



    This is a fascinating website here: Ancient Patriarchs:
    https://ancientpatriarchs.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/wow/

    In the youtube video it speaks of the preference of the LXX over the Masoretic for the geneologies in Genesis. It makes more sense.

    I am a Young Earth Creationist but have always doubted the 2350 date for the Flood put forth by many YEC folks. There was not enough time between the Flood and Babel. This website shows the Flood was probably more likely at least 3000 BC.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  2. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor

    Very interesting and a compelling presentation.
     
  3. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    Fascinating, looks like we need new Bible translations ! :detective:
     
  4. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    Jimmy,
    It does appear the LXX was correct on those geneologies.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  5. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    Yes Perg, my post above was not in jest. The information contained in the video you posted is really 'fascinating' to me. It is far beyond my expertise to confirm or deny it, but the presentation makes perfect sense, and if there is tension between the dating of the flood, the tower of Babel, and the question of why no water damage evidenced on the pyramids, this explains it. I'd like to see some OT/Hebrew scholars weigh in and confirm or deny the assertions.

    I particularly noted their reference to Titus 3:9, But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. I had assumed that Paul was referring to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. I knew there has been some dispute over the differences in the two, and the explanation being one if of Joseph, the other Mary's antecedents. Here again, the video makes a lot of sense.

    In doing a lot of reading on the Received versus the Critical texts some of the authors had portrayed the scribes of the OT as being far more meticulous than those who copied the NT. On the other hand, I've come across claims that the Masoretic text is also 'corrupted' in places. From my own experience in typing excerpts from hard copy texts in posts I've made on this board I have no doubt that anything human beings copy will have mistakes. Anyway, I hope the revelations made in the video lead to correcting the texts as far as possible.
     
  6. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

    Maybe I need to lower my standards of evidence for the field of textual criticism, but a lot of this seems speculative and does not follow (as often seems to me to be the case in textual arguments). The scientific arguments are interesting, but I am not sure how relevant they should be in determining the original text. I am also not sure how this fits in with providential preservation.

    That aside though, here is an argument from the other side: https://creation.com/lxx-mt-response

    I had heard that Methusaleh dies after the flood in the LXX chronology, but I have not checked for myself. The video did not address this. Also, it is possible for a name to be given prophetically, so the Tower would only need to occur in the lifetime of Peleg. I'm not sure how that affects the population growth. I also do not know where this 30,000 number is coming from with respect to the Tower: the Tower was not completed, and we do not know how far along they got. People can do crazy things when they are blinded by idolatry.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  7. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    Is there an extra Cainan in the geneologies?

    John Gill even thought so: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_41-43.pdf

    "‘Ver. 36. Which was the son of Cainan, … This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in Ge 11:12 nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in 1 Ch 1:24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is it in Beza’s most ancient Greek copy of Luke: it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke’s gospel, and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say “early”, because it is in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to stand neither in the text, nor in any version: for certain it is, there never was such a Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, for Salah was his son; and with him the next words should be connected.’"

    I REALLY don't like this doctrine which allows "copyist errors" but I agree that it does not hurt the doctrine of inerrancy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2019
  8. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

    I also don't like the "copyist errors" view, although it is a common view concerning the second Cainan in Luke. I think Turretin also considered it spurious. There is another view though that allows the Cainan to be original and non-redundant (as other explanations--that affirm Cainan should be there--tend to make him).

    https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/KJV-today.84430/#post-1056118

    Should Cainan be in the genealogy in Luke 3:36? - King James Version Today
    "It is perfectly understandable why the genealogy of Luke includes a name that never appeared in any Jewish genealogy, including Genesis, Chronicles and Josephus. Previous Jewish genealogies focused on biological sonship. However, the genealogy of Luke clearly focuses on sonship by adoption. Luke 3:23 says that Jesus was “the son of Joseph” despite Joseph having no biological connection to Jesus. Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph. Luke 3:23 also says that Joseph "was the son of Heli” (literally "was of Heli") despite Joseph being the biological son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16). Heli was actually the father of Mary, Joseph’s wife. Thus, Joseph was the adopted son (son in law) of Heli. If this pattern continues in the genealogy, it would not be surprising to find an adopted son who had previously been omitted from biological genealogies. Thus, we can reasonably accept that Cainan was the adopted son of Arphaxad, and that Cainan raised Sala, who was the biological son of Arphaxad. The Masoretic text is not in error because its genealogies in Genesis and Chronicles focus on biological sonship."
     
  9. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    I like that interpretation better. Thanks!
     
  10. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Junior

    Interesting Video. Seems very single sided. I would love to hear a good response supporting the current reading in our English translations for the genealogies and the duration of time spent in Egypt. The video seemed to make good common sense when adding the additional 650 years. However, I do not ultimately depend on my "common sense" when reading the scriptures. I am a young earth creationist, but it seems you can still hold this view, even if the video is correct considering he is only advocating for adding approx. 600 years.

    P.S. However, as Paul tells us, not much worth in debating genealogies! Maybe that undercuts the entire video...ha:confused:
    :detective:
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2019
  11. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Junior

  12. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    Well, I watched some of it again and took some notes. The vid starts out with the observation that there is no water damage on the pyramids, and claims that using Ussher's dating they would have already been built before the universal flood. So why, if that is correct is there no water damage ?

    The LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Flavius Josephus agree in their historic dating, opposing that of the MT. The added 650 years puts the pyramids after the flood, accounting for the lack of water damage. It also makes more sense, according to the video, in a larger population able to build the Tower of Babel. Going by the MT it is unlikely that the population of that time could have done it.

    The premise advanced in the video, if I understood it correctly, is that Rabbis conspired with scribes at the time the MT was being transcribed to deliberately change the ages of Noah's progeny in order to say that his son Shem lived long enough to meet Abram (Abraham) as Melchizedek. Their purpose to contradict the Christian belief that Melchizedek was a priest outside of the Levitical order, and therefore, if Shem was actually Melchizedek, Christ Jesus could not be our high priest, as His was not a Levitical lineage.

    According to the LXX, they say, Shem died before Abraham was born, so he couldn't have been Melchizedek, contradicting the claim that he was a Levitcal priest after all.

    There is a lot more to it than that, but I can understand busy OT scholars on the PB not wanting to waste 31 minutes on what may be spurious conjecture.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  13. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

  14. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Junior

    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
  15. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    This previous thread disturbs me ... I'm 70 years old, and think myself cognizant. I clicked on Ramon's link and was interested to see what response the older thread received. I was shocked to see that I posted twice in the older thread ... and had no remembrance of having seen the video or the thread ! Am I coming down with old timer's disease ? :doh:
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  16. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Junior

    Haha... I thought the same thing when i saw your post on the thread from last month! Maybe you’re part of the conspiracy!
     
  17. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    The MT would be the correct Hebrew text for studying the OT with, as while the LXX was used in certain NT passages to us, the Hebrew text would be the one inspired from God to us.
     
  18. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    David...I'm trying to be kind here but it does confuse me why you often make statements on rudimentary aspects that are only vaguely related to the topic (in this case, the connection is tenuous at best).

    May I suggest reading a little more closely and assume people here are reasonably well-educated on the subjects at hand? And resist the compulsion to post as often?
     
  19. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    I know that many here on the PB are much better versed in certain areas then I am in regards to translations, theology etc, as I am just seeking to become more understanding on those issues, but will also be trying to keep myself to essential postings only!
     
  20. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    David, the way I understand it ... the LXX was a translation of an older OT manuscript than that used for the MT, into Greek for the benefit of those in the captivity, who had forgotten, or never learned Hebrew/Aramaic, but for whom Greek was the Lingua Franca. The LXX does not contain a translation of the NT, because it came to be before the birth of our Lord. Unless I misunderstand what you've said ....
     
  21. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Thanks, as I was just wondering how some would see the LXX itself as maybe being the inspired text that the Church should have adopted for use over the MT itself.
     
  22. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    To the Admins ... If possible can this thread be merged with Pergamum's original thread on the topic ? ... Or this thread be closed and further posts, if there is any interest, be posted to the original thread.
     
  23. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    Threads merged, Jimmy.
     
  24. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    Parts of the presentation make sense to me, at least initially. The explanation of Genesis 11 and the years of the genealogy, given the evidence of the versions, makes sense. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to the MT. However, it usually creates problems just at this point in Genesis 11 with the Egyptian chronologies usually given by Egyptologists. And, as has been said on other threads, the LXX is a translation of a Hebrew manuscript, which in places (not the whole, like the video claims!) differs from the MT. Not everywhere does it differ, however. For instance, I just read through Jonah in the MT and LXX for my class on the LXX, carefully comparing the two. It seems evident that there are almost no differences in the Hebrew manuscript that the LXX used as its Vorlage (parent manuscript) and the MT. So, the video broadens its claims too much with regard to the points he makes about the LXX and MT generally. As to whether there was a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the high priesthood of Jesus, that is a possibility. However, trying to prove intent regarding such a change is quite difficult. That Jews have used the shorter years of the MT genealogy to try to undermine Christ's priesthood is beyond doubt. However, whether that, in turn, proves Masoretic messing with the manuscripts, that is something else.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  25. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    Reverend Keister, is there a scholarly consensus on the LXX longer years versus the MT shorter years ? The life span of Shem compared to his progeny ? I'm in the midst of reading 'The Infallible Word' and Robert Dick Wilson, among others, is referenced a lot. The premise being that most of the differences in the LXX/MT are matters of vowel points and the like. So far no mention of the genealogies.
     
  26. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    Jimmy, the commentators tend to prefer the MT. However, equally clearly, they don't raise the issues that the video raises.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  27. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    When Jesus read in the synagogue, he seemed to follow the LXX, right?
     
  28. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    Perg, the subject of the LXX and the MT in the NT is a tricky issue. By and large, the NT followed the LXX, but this has to be qualified. First, there is still mostly overlap between the LXX and the MT, even on the quotations in the NT. Secondly, there are a few places where the NT follows more the MT than the LXX. So, it is complicated.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  29. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Pardon my ignorance as I read something that inferred or actually said the negative but don't recall now the details (if it was here, bygones). Do we know that the LXX is the LXX circa 30 A.D.?
     
  30. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    Chris, there are a number of Greek translations that enter the discussion. There is the LXX (but many scholars don't think we can talk about just one LXX), Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. There is an entire textual critical question regarding the LXX itself, as well, since there are rescensions of manuscripts that introduce more or less purity (scholars talk about the Lucianic and Hexeplaric rescensions). That there was an LXX in 30 AD, I think most scholars would agree that there was.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page