Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Genesis 11:10 ¶ These are the records of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old, and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood; |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Genesis 11:10 ¶ These are the records of the generations of Shem [from whom Abraham descended]. Shem was a hundred years old when he became the father of Arpachshad, two years after the flood. |
Subject: Did Shem exit the Ark at 98, outlv Abrm? |
Bible Note: 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 |