Re: Genesis Generations

Hi Rich, you wrote:

>>There is an interesting slant on the genealogies at this link:

http://www.purposeoflife.org.uk/appendix-genealogies.htm

The expanding geneaologies ploy is simply to drive Adam back into a believable time frame so that conceivably he could start the human race to fit the traditional idea that he was the ultimate progenitor of our species. In the article you referenced the author states, "If one assumes that a long period of time elapsed between Adam and Abraham .."

Why would one make that assumption? Well, because Adam at roughly 6,000 to 7,000 years ago is too late to begin the biological train of mankind. Which, of course, is my point. Driving Adam back in time also drives him out of southern Mesopotamia which is the setting for the garden of Eden according to Genesis. The area is too dry to raise livestock and crops and was not settled until they perfected irrigation. Eridu, the oldest city, dates to 4800 BC and was irrigated by canal off the Euphrates.

So driving Adam back in time solves nothing. If the genealogies are suspect then the rest of the description in Genesis is likely invalid also. Out of the frying pan ...

The other tack is to say that all of the Genesis narrative was fabricated. You don't need to expand the genealogies to do that. Just say you don't believe it and start reading at Matthew.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
.
Hi Glenn, you wrote;

>>In Luke 3 there are 42 names between Jesus and David. This is an average
of 23 years per generation. If Abraham lived at 1800 B.C. there are only
13 names between David and Abe giving an average 61 year generation time.
Did the average man in 1600 B.C. have his first child at age 61?<<

And Abraham lived to 175, having the first child when he was old according to the Genesis text. The numbers of patriarchs listed is consistent with how long presumably they lived. There is variation between the Masoretic text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint, but all the texts give consistent figures between the ages to which they lived and procreated and the relative time periods in which the patriarchs lived assuming all was in Neolithic times. Abraham lived about 2000 BC, Noah was aged 600 at the time of the flood at 2900 BC, and Adam 1500 to 2000 years before that in rough figures. I find nothing inconsistent (with minor textual discrepancies) in the number of patriarchs listed assuming that Genesis also got their ages right.

>>There are only 10 names between Abraham and Noah. Since the YECs say that
this represents 1200 years, that is an average generation time of 120
years. Few are willing to say that post flood Sumerians lived
lives of several hundred years and that their first born were born on
average when the old geezers were 120 years of age?<<

Adamites aren't Sumerians. The Sumerian king Gilgamesh sought out the flood hero because of his longevity. That was the purpose for seeking him out in the first place. I'm not saying the legend is true, but it certainly follows the Genesis narrative.

What you are trying to claim is that there are sufficient discrepancies in the numbers of Genesis patriarchs listed to render it totally worthless, and therefore you can pump in untold thousands of unnamed Adamites and Semites to drive the whole scenario back millions of years to even before the appearance of Homo sapiens! And that doesn't sound illogical to you?

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/
Received on Fri May 27 17:57:44 2005