Results 1 - 17 of 17
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | EdB | 140674 | ||
Pastor Glenn You would have to see a Reese Bible. Verses are places in sequential order and carry normal Bible reference. Gen 11:11 is placed after 1 Chronicles 1:32-33 and before Genesis 25:19 and are found on page 73. There is a cross reference that helps locate a particular verse by book chapter and verse. It is commonly known things get a little confusing in Bible Genealogy and it common for a generation to be missed or not included in one Genealogy but referenced in another. Example compare Genesis 11:24 and Luke 3:36 in Luke it says Selah was the son of Cainan who was the son of Arphaxad but in Genesis 11:24 it says Arphaxad had a son Salah with no mention of Cainan.So there is a generation either missing in Gen 11 or added in Luke. How Reese came up with his dating I have no idea but I also bow to his 20 years of study on the subject. There is not indication he used anything other than the actual Bible for his work. EdB |
||||||
2 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | Pastor Glenn | 140684 | ||
EdB, Now that you have mentioned Luke 3:36, I see that you have discussed this before. I will check out the website that Tim referenced at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3748.asp Thanks, Pastor Glenn |
||||||
3 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | greentwiga | 140695 | ||
That is interesting. I have studied Noah extensively, yet there is always something more to glean from scriptures. Luke does indicate that at least one name was left out of the geneology in Genesis (and in Chronicles). This is despite how Genesis makes it look like no names were left out. Greentwiga |
||||||
4 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | Pastor Glenn | 140817 | ||
No, It appears more likely that we have cirtain translations of Luke that have the extra name "Canain" inadvertantly added: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3748.asp Pastor Glenn |
||||||
5 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | greentwiga | 140833 | ||
I prefer to believe that we have at least one extant manuscript with the right original words. Is there any ancient manuscripts that leave out the name Canain? Otherwise I must conclude that God deliberately included the name in Luke. Once we start assuming there are errors in all extant manuscripts, we have started down a slippery slope. Greentwiga |
||||||
6 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | Pastor Glenn | 140836 | ||
"I prefer to believe that we have at least one extant manuscript with the right original words. Is there any ancient manuscripts that leave out the name Canain? " Yes, this is what the article says: "... A clue to the solution is that the extra Cainan in Genesis 11 is found only in manuscripts of the LXX that were written long after Luke’s Gospel. The oldest LXX manuscripts do not have this extra Cainan." Have you read it closely? See it at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3748.asp Pastor Glenn |
||||||
7 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | EdB | 140843 | ||
Pastor Glenn For the other side of the story read http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/cainan.html EdB |
||||||
8 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | Pastor Glenn | 140846 | ||
Hello EdB, http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/cainan.html: "However, Cainan does appear in the Greek Septuagint translation of Genesis: "Sons of Sem: Elam, and Assur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Cainan . . . . And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala. And Sala begot Heber . . . . And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died." (Gen. 10:22, 24; 11:12-13) Although many Greek Septuagint manuscripts of I Chronicles omit the second Cainan, many Septuagint copies show the following: "And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala, and Sala begot Heber . . . . Sem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Sala, . . . ." (I Chron. 1:18, 24) " This looks even stranger. Notice above, how the entire list of names are repeated. Am I looking at this the wrong way? Pastor Glenn |
||||||
9 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | EdB | 140860 | ||
Pastor Glenn I'm neither a supporter nor a detractor of the second Cainan. I just know there is no definitive answer. I used the Cainan example as a possible reason why the Reese Chronological Bible arrived at different dates than you and New Creature. Be assured I don’t even know if Reese ever considered the Cainan issue. I further cautioned against discounting as error, the fact the Cainan is not mentioned in Genesis and is in Luke. If you look at the 12 tribes, Dan for instance is mentioned and omitted many times. I don’t know the answer to why Cainan is not in the Genesis account but is in Luke, it could well be an error but until we can say that conclusively I think it better to say we don’t know. There are some theologians that track this back to Ham’s sin and the curse on Canaan. That Cainan was really of Ham’s lineage but raised by Shem’s family and thus the curse of Canaan’s lineage was broken. They felt it was included in Luke’s account to set a tone of redemption. Or it could be as explained in one of the two web sites we mention either the one you referenced or the one I referenced. Let us not lose sight of a very important fact of this discussion that is the account of the Fall and the Garden of Eden was probably passed through Abraham’s generation but second or third hand knowledge of people that had talked to Adam. This is important since we see accurate secular history preserved from this time period thus giving us still another assurance of the accuracy of the Biblical account. EdB |
||||||
10 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | Pastor Glenn | 140864 | ||
I understand your concern EdB. I just see a much more difficult problem in loosing the name Cainan from Gen 11. The way this is written, I think it is called a "double linked list" of names between verses. It would have to have been dropped from at least 2 verses (12 and 13) and the wording would need to change in those verses. Also, 2 other complete verses (13.1 and 13.2) would have been dropped. Gen 11 12And Arphaxad hath lived five and thirty years, and begetteth Salah. 13And Arphaxad liveth after his begetting Salah four hundred and three years, and begetteth sons and daughters. This is how it would have looked with Cainan inserted: 12And Arphaxad hath lived five and thirty years, and begetteth Cainan. (changed) 13And Arphaxad liveth after his begetting Cainan four hundred and three years, and begetteth sons and daughters. (changed) 13.1 And Cainan hath lived five and thirty years, and begetteth Salah. (dropped) 13.2 And Cainan liveth after his begetting Salah X years, and begetteth sons and daughters. (dropped) An inadvertent error in Luke 3:36 is one thing. But the changes to Gen 11 cannot be inadvertent. It would have to have been done on purpose. Do you see my point? "Let us not lose sight of a very important fact of this discussion that is the account of the Fall and the Garden of Eden was probably passed through Abraham’s generation but second or third hand knowledge of people that had talked to Adam. This is important since we see accurate secular history preserved from this time period thus giving us still another assurance of the accuracy of the Biblical account. " I agree. Pastor Glenn |
||||||
11 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | EdB | 140895 | ||
Pastor Glenn Yes I understand your view. Of the copies of the Septuagint and other scriptural Manuscripts that do include Cainan in Genesis 11. Some feel this was a product of organized tampering and this explanation is offered, the changes in Genesis 11 was done by the writers of the Septuagint to increase the length of Jewish culture to match what Egyptians were claiming for their culture. Apparently conspiracy theories were as popular in the past as they are today. :-) Understand the popular conclusion on which is correct, will have the biggest following. If you note as you search in the web on this subject. Most explanations are word for word copies of each other. In other words the web authors rather than doing any research on their part have found an explanation that floats their boat and they copy that explanation into their web site offering as proof of their point. Having studied briefly some of the more valid theological research on this subject I come to the conclusion no one can say for certain there was or was not a “second” Cainan. Most of the more thought of Bible textbooks and reference works merely mention a “second” Cainan and let it up to the reader to research a conclusion. Interestingly some of the major authors that have written books that explains inconsistencies and apparent contradictions within the Bible steer clear of this subject. The main thing that bothers me about the Cainan being added in Luke is that Luke himself apparently did in fact included it. Most give the reason for this as Luke copied the genealogy from an altered copy of the Septuagint. That is interesting but one would think that God being God and able to create the universe would have been able to insure his chosen writer, that was recording events for all of mankind, would have a faithful copy from which to take that Genealogy. Another thing that bothers me very much about the inadvertent addition of Cainan into the Septuagint theory is the fact the Septuagint was in existence at the time of Jesus and in fact some scholars feel certain that Jesus quoted from it. In any case the importance of that work had to be known to Jesus at the time. If Cainan was in fact added into any copy as some claim the name was I would think Jesus would have said, “hey you guys messed up.” I know many claim the addition of Cainan didn’t happen until later when Luke was writing his account. But that doesn’t hold up against the theory the name was added to BC manuscripts and Septuagint manuscripts to add length to the Jewish culture to match Egyptian culture. In summary we have some interesting things happen with the name Cainan. 1. In the Luke account the explanation is Luke used a bad copy of the Septuagint. 2. Or those that copied Luke mistakenly copied Cainan from a line above and added the extra Cainan. In the Septuagint that has the name in the Genesis 11 these explanations are offered. 1. It was a scribal error copying one line over thus adding the name Cainan twice. 2. It was done on purpose to increase the number of generations to match Egyptian claims of how long their society existed. In other Biblical manuscripts that include Cainan these explanations are offered. 1. They are actually later copies that merely continued the error first established in the Septuagint. 2. They too had the name Cainan added to make Jewish culture as old as claimed Egyptian culture. In Biblical manuscripts that don’t include Cainan we have these explanations. 1. There was no “second” Cainan and his name is correctly absent. 2. There was scribal errors made and his name inadvertently got deleted. 3. God for whatever reason didn’t include Cainan in the Genesis account but did in the Luke account. It seems the name Cainan is very magical. From all the explanations of how this name could be there we learn, in some cases it was added or subtracted by a scribal mistake, in other cases it was purposely added to increase the number of generations, or in fact Cainan was a valid person and God chose not to include his name in Genesis account but did include it in Luke. What a magical name! EdB |
||||||
12 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | Pastor Glenn | 140909 | ||
Hello EdB, "The main thing that bothers me about the Cainan being added in Luke is that Luke himself apparently did in fact included it. Most give the reason for this as Luke copied the genealogy from an altered copy of the Septuagint. That is interesting but one would think that God being God and able to create the universe would have been able to insure his chosen writer, that was recording events for all of mankind, would have a faithful copy from which to take that Genealogy." The article at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3748.asp was written by Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M. ( He has written many apologetics books. I am impressed by his biography at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_sarfati.asp) and goes to great lengths to show that the second Cainan was not in the oldest copy of the Septuagint or the oldest copy of Luke. As support to it not being in older copies of the Septuagint, they quote a study by Mr. Larry Pierce. Mr Pierce, in turn, studies secular ancient writings of Josephus (AD 37/38 – c.100) to show that the extra Cainan was not in Josephus’ copy of the Septuagint. Even though Josephus’ copy contained most of the same errors (100 years added to each person in the genealogy), the extra Cainan was still not there. "Another thing that bothers me very much about the inadvertent addition of Cainan into the Septuagint theory is the fact the Septuagint was in existence at the time of Jesus and in fact some scholars feel certain that Jesus quoted from it. In any case the importance of that work had to be known to Jesus at the time. If Cainan was in fact added into any copy as some claim the name was I would think Jesus would have said, "hey you guys messed up." I know many claim the addition of Cainan didn’t happen until later when Luke was writing his account. But that doesn’t hold up against the theory the name was added to BC manuscripts and Septuagint manuscripts to add length to the Jewish culture to match Egyptian culture." Mr. Pierce summarizes: "I think we have more than enough evidence that would stand up in any court of law to show that every single copy we have of the LXX text was corrupted some time after AD 220. The copies of the LXX available to both Josephus and Africanus did not include this spurious generation. It is also not in either the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Hebrew manuscripts… …All these predate the New Testament Greek text. …" EdB, when you say "…that doesn’t hold up against the theory the name was added to BC manuscripts and Septuagint manuscripts…", do you count the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Hebrew manuscripts? Happy New Year, Pastor Glenn |
||||||
13 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | EdB | 140911 | ||
Pastor Glenn As with the Bible itself there are constant discussions as to which should take precedence. The oldest copy? The majority texts? The most verifiable? The argument for the oldest is, it is closest to the original therefore probably the most accurate. The counter to that is it may have been a corrupted text that was meant to be destroyed but somehow survived, or a the time of it creation had used faulty translation of various words that have since been corrected. In recent history it has been proven over and over again that the first copies of most modern manuscripts carry the most error compared to the original. One has to ask could this be the case here. The argument for the majority texts is, the number of them carry the weight and since their in agreement it is safe to assume they are the most accurate. The counter to this is while they may be most numerous they could have their origin in one corrupted text. In many ancient secular manuscripts this has been seen over and over, so one has to ask could this be the case here. The argument for the most verifiable is, it’s origins can be traced or it can be proven it wasn’t modified down through the millennia. The counter to this is because it was so isolated perhaps that fact proves it contains corruption that the other texts corrected through the ages. Again and most often when there is an agenda involved this has been found to be true. We know there was some concern over provable beginning of the Egyptian civilization and the Genesis account just as there is today between science and the Bible. It is also known that generations were added and subtracted to reconcile this. Since it did happen one has to ask could this be the case here. Again we must weigh in scribal errors, deliberate modifications, and naturally occurring translation errors. The point I’m trying to make while your argument on the inclusion of the name Cainan into Luke while not being mentioned in Genesis sounds logical (and is most probably correct). We can not discount the fact it may have been an intentional addition made by God. Therefore we should not summarily dismiss it or become too dogmatic about how the discrepancy occurred. Since it has no real effect on the true message of scriptures one wonders if it isn’t just causing us to lose focus on the real issues of the Bible. EdB |
||||||
14 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | Pastor Glenn | 140916 | ||
"The argument for the majority texts is, the number of them carry the weight and since their in agreement it is safe to assume they are the most accurate. The counter to this is while they may be most numerous they could have their origin in one corrupted text. In many ancient secular manuscripts this has been seen over and over, so one has to ask could this be the case here." "Two or three witnesses" is biblically the accepted way to go: Deuteronomy 19:15 [ The Law Concerning Witnesses] "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. "Since it has no real effect on the true message of scriptures one wonders if it isn’t just causing us to lose focus on the real issues of the Bible. " Amen |
||||||
15 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | EdB | 140917 | ||
Pastor Glenn If we used Deut 19:15 as the accepted way to determine manuscript accuracy many translation of the Bible that are based on other than the Majority texts would have to be discounted. That might make a few people unhappy EdB |
||||||
16 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | Pastor Glenn | 140919 | ||
EdB, Your right. Majority text is probably not as good as Majority "Sources" (Josephus, Africanus, 1Ch1:24, 2Ch, Targum, Beza’s most ancient Greek copy of Luke). "Sources" is probably closer to what is meant by "witnesses" in Deut 19:15. Pastor Glenn |
||||||
17 | Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? | Gen 11:10 | EdB | 140926 | ||
Majority text is made up of what is considered a vast majority of texts that seem to agree with each other. Hence it's names. therefore it is made up a majority of witnesses. EdB |
||||||