Most of us love to read portions of Scripture that give accounts
of victories, miracles, and drama. We enjoy far less the Scriptures that
outline a certain person begat a son or daughter, who in turn begat a son, thus
beginning a long list of begats. Most people believe the genealogies contain
only dull details, but those of us who keep in mind that “every word is given
by inspiration of God” see that even these so-called dull passages contain
vital truth that can be trusted.
Genesis 5 and 11 contain two such genealogies. It may be hard to
believe, but Genesis 5 and 11 are actually two of the more controversial
chapters in the Bible, even in Christian circles.
Because so many Christians and Christian leaders have accepted the
secular dates for the origin of man and the universe, they must work out ways
that such dates can somehow be incorporated into the Bible’s historical
account. In other words, they must convince people that the Bible’s
genealogical records do not present an unbroken line of chronology. If such an
unbroken line exists, then we should be able to calculate dates concerning the
creation of man and the universe.
To fit the idea of billions of years into Scripture, many
Christian leaders, since the early 19th century, have reinterpreted the days of
creation to mean long ages. Biblical creationist literature has meticulously
addressed this topic many times, showing clearly that the word day,
as used in Genesis 1 for each of the six days of creation, means an ordinary,
approximately 24-hour day.1
A straightforward addition of the chronogenealogies yields a date
for the beginning near 4000 B.C. Chronologists working from the Bible consistently
get 2,000 years between Adam and Abraham. Few would dispute that Abraham lived
around 2000 B.C. Many Christian leaders, though, claim there are gaps in the
Genesis genealogies. One of their arguments is that the word begat,
as used in the time-line from the first man Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and
11, can skip generations. If this argument were true, the date for creation
using the biblical time-line of history cannot be worked out.
In a recent debate,2 a
well-known progressive creationist3 stated
that he believed a person could date Adam back 100,000 years from the present.
Since most modern scholars place the date of Abraham around 2000 B.C. (Ussher’s
date for Abraham’s birth is 1996 B.C.), the remaining 96,000 years must fit
into the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, between Adam and Abraham.
Now, if we estimate that 40 years equals one generation, which is
fairly generous,4 this
means that 2,500 generations are missing from these genealogies. But this makes
the genealogies ridiculously meaningless.
Two Keys to Consider
Those who claim that there are gaps in these genealogies need to
demonstrate this from the biblical text and not simply say that gaps exist.
However, consider the following:
1. Although in the
Hebrew way of thinking, the construction “X is the son of Y” does not always
mean a literal father/son relationship,5 additional
biographical information in Genesis 5 and 11 strongly supports the view that
there are no gaps in these chapters. So we know for certain that the following
are literal father/son relationships: Adam/Seth, Seth/Enosh, Lamech/Noah,
Noah/Shem, Eber/Peleg, and Terah/Abram. Nothing in these chapters indicates
that the “X begat Y” means something other than a literal
father/son relationship.
2. Nowhere in the Old
Testament is the Hebrew word for begat (yalad) used in
any other way than to mean a single-generation (e.g., father/son or
mother/daughter) relationship. The Hebrew word ben can mean son or grandson,
but the word yalad never skips generations.
Six Arguments Refuted
In the recent debate (mentioned previously), various biblical
references were given as proofs that the Hebrew word yalad does
not always point to the very next generation. However, when analyzed carefully,
these arguments actually confirm what we are asserting concerning the wordbegat.
Argument 1
Genesis 46:15 says,
“These be the sons of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob in Padanaram, with his
daughter Dinah: all the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty and
three” (KJV). The word bare here is the Hebrew word yalad,
which is also translated begat. It is claimed by some that because
there are sons of various wives, grandsons, daughters, etc., in this list of
“thirty and three,” the word begat is referring to all these
and can’t be interpreted as we assert.
Is Argument 1 Relevant?
A person needs to read the quoted verse carefully to correctly
understand its meaning. Thebegat (bare) refers to the sons
born in Padanaram. Genesis 35:23 lists
the six sons born in Padanaram (those whom Leah begat), who are listed as part
of the total group of 33 children inGenesis 46:15. Thus, this passage confirms
that begat points to the generation immediately following—a literal
parent/child relationship.
Argument 2
Matthew 1:8 omits
Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, going directly from Joram to Uzziah. Matthew 1:11 skips Jehoiakim between
Josiah and Jeconiah. These passages prove that the word begatskips
generations.
Is Argument 2 Relevant?
Here, the Greek word for begat is gennao,
which shows flexibility not found in the Hebrew word and does allow for the
possibility that a generation or more may be skipped. The only way we would
know that a generation has been skipped is by checking the Hebrew passages.
However, it is linguistically deceptive to use the Greek word for begat to
define the Hebrew word for begat. Also, Matthew 1 is intentionally
incomplete when reading Matthew 1:1 and Matthew 1:17, merely giving 14 generations
between key figures of Abraham, David, and Jesus.
Argument 3
Genesis 46:18, 22, and 25 says, “These are the sons of Zilpah,
whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter, and these she bare unto Jacob, even
sixteen souls. . . . These are the sons of Rachel, which were born to Jacob:
all the souls were fourteen. . . . These are the sons of Bilhah, which Laban
gave to Rachel his daughter, and she bare these unto Jacob: all the souls were
seven” (KJV). In verse 18, the Hebrew word yalad (begat or bore)
implies a grandson, as well as a son; so the word begat cannot
be used to show a direct relationship.
Is Argument 3 Relevant?
The word bare in verse 18 refers to Zilpah’s
actual sons, referenced in verses 16 (Gad) and 17 (Asher). Note the pattern in
this chapter. In verse 15 we are given the total number of Leah’s offspring
(33), in verse 18 the total of Zilpah’s offspring (16), in verse 22 the total
of Rachel’s offspring (14), and in verse 25 the total of Bilhah’s offspring
(7). This makes a total of 70. But nowhere is it stated that these four wives
physically bore the total number of sons listed for each.
What this passage shows, as stated earlier, is that the Hebrew
word for son (ben) may include grandsons. In the case
of Zilpah, her two sons are clearly listed, as well as the children of Gad and
Asher. To insist that in this case only (and not the cases of Leah, Rachel, and
Bilhah) the summary total given at the end of verse 18 implies that all these were
begotten of Zilpah is not justified by the context, and therefore, is not sound
hermeneutics. The context makes it very clear that Zilpah had only two sons,
and this passage does not show that the Hebrew word yalad(begat or bore)
implies a grandson, as well as a son.
Argument 4
An example of where the word begat omits
generations is 1 Chronicles 7:23–27. It
is clear from this passage that there are ten generations from Ephraim to
Joshua, whereas Genesis 15:16 says
there were only four generations from the time the children of Israel entered
Egypt to the time they left. Therefore, the Hebrew word for begat does
not always mean the next generation.
Is Argument 4 Relevant?
This argument seems logically airtight except for two minor
points. The Hebrew word yalad forbegat is not used
in the 1 Chronicles passage, and Genesis 15:16 is misquoted. Genesis
states that “in the fourth generation” the children of Israel would leave
Egypt—not that there would be a maximum of four generations. For this prophecy
in Genesis to be fulfilled, some of the fourth generation would be in the
exodus from Egypt—and they were. Exodus 6 lists the generations from Levi to
Moses, showing that Moses and Aaron were in the fourth generation. Therefore
the passage in 1 Chronicles cannot be used to prove that the Hebrew word for begat can
skip a generation.
It is quite helpful, however, to explain how the Israelites became
so numerous during their stay in Egypt. The descendants of Joshua appear to have
had a new generation about every 20 years, whereas the descendants of Moses and
Aaron had a new generation about every 50 years.
Argument 5
In Luke 3:36, the name
Cainan is listed, which is not listed in the Old Testament chronologies.
Is Argument 5 Relevant?
The present copies of the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of
the Old Testament) incorrectly have the name Cainan inserted in the Old
Testament genealogies. The great Baptist Hebrew scholar John Gill (c. A.D.
1760), in his exposition on this verse, wrote:
This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in Genesis 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 Chronicles 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 there, 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.6
Since Gill’s commentary was written, the oldest manuscript we have
of Luke, the P75, was found. It dates to the late second century
A.D. and does not include Cainan in the genealogy. This verse in Luke should
not be used to prove that the genealogies in Genesis have gaps, because it has
poor textual authority.
Argument 6
Author and radio host Harold Camping argues for a unique
interpretation of the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11. According to his
interpretation, Adam was created in 11,013 B.C. The chronological statements in
these two chapters are of the following form.
When X was A years old he begat Y. He lived B years after he begat
Y and died at the age of C years. So A + B = C.
Camping interprets this statement as follows:
When X was A years old he begat a progenitor of Y. He lived B
years after he begat a progenitor of Y and died at age C, which was the same
year that Y was born.
Is Argument 6 Relevant?
We must give Mr. Camping credit for originality and ingenuity, for
we are not aware of anyone who interpreted these verses as such before him. As
proof for this interpretation, Mr. Camping cites Matthew 1:8 that the word begat does
not mean a father/son relationship. We have already discussed this line of
reasoning in argument 2 and refuted it, thus exploding Mr. Camping’s argument.
While claiming to honor the text of the Bible, Mr. Camping
demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the Hebrew verb forms for begat found
in chapter 5 and 11 of Genesis. These verbs use the hiphil form
of the verb. Most Hebrew verbs use the qal form, which
corresponds to the active indicative tense in English. Hiphil usually
expresses the causative action of qal.
|
he eats
|
he causes to eat
|
|
he comes
|
he causes to come, he brings
|
|
he reigned
|
he made king, he crowned
|
The hiphil has no exact English equivalent and is
difficult to capture the meaning in English. Some modern English translations
use the word fathered instead of the word begat,
thus removing the ambiguity. To make it absolutely clear, the verb could be
translated X himself fathered Y, but that is awkward English. It is
difficult to father a remote descendant without committing incest! When the
Hebrew verb form is honored in English, it precludes the interpretation Mr.
Camping places on it. God chose this form to make it absolutely clear that we
understand that there are no missing generations in chapters 5 and 11 of
Genesis. Any other Hebrew verb form would not have been nearly as emphatic as
the hiphil form.
In his latest book Time Has an End, Mr. Camping sets
out a complete chronology for the Bible using his defective understanding of
the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11, which includes the following mistakes.
§ Israel’s time in
Egypt was 430 years.
§ The date for the
Exodus is wrong.
§ The chronology for
the time of the judges is confused.
§ The chronology of the
divided kingdom is partially based on Dr. Edwin Thiele’s work The
Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which contradicts the Bible in many
places.
§ The end of the world
in 2011. (His earlier prediction of 1994 had to be reinterpreted.)
Rather than refute these incorrect ideas, we recommend the Chronology
of the Old Testament(Master Books, 2005) by Dr. Floyd Jones for a more
accurate, biblically based chronology that is devoid of the speculations of Mr.
Camping and refutes most of Camping’s chronology.
Missing Generations?
Many creationists believe the earth is about 10,000 years old in
an attempt to make the biblical record conform to modern archaeological ideas.
According to these ideas, Egypt began around 3500 B.C. and Babylon in 4000 B.C.
Since these nations speak different languages, their founding must have been
after the Tower of Babel, which occurred after the Flood. So some creationists
place the Flood around 5000 B.C. and the creation around 10,000 B.C. It is
curious that, having rejected the evidence for long ages, these creationists
are inadvertently and blindly trusting man’s fallible dating methods for
archaeological data, which rests on just as flimsy a foundation as does the
evidence for long ages.7
Assuming these creationists are correct, how many generations are
missing from Genesis 5 and 11? We will use the Hebrew text for these
calculations; using other versions such as the Septuagint (LXX) makes the
matter even more improbable.
According to the Hebrew text, there were 1,656 years between
creation and the Flood and 1,556 years between creation and Noah’s first son,
or 10 generations. Assuming the average generation (from father to son) was 156
years (divide 1,556 by 10), how many extra generations are needed to get 5,000
years from the creation to Noah’s first son? Divide 5,000 by 156 and you get
about 32 generations. On the average, then, for every generation listed in
Genesis 5, two are missing! However, let’s examine Genesis 5 more closely:
1. There are no missing
generations between Adam and Seth, since Seth is a direct replacement for Abel,
whom Cain murdered (Genesis 4:25).
2. There are no missing
generations between Seth and Enosh, since Seth named him (Genesis 4:25).
3. Jude says Enoch was
the seventh from Adam (Jude 14), so there are
no missing generations between Adam and Enoch.
4. Lamech named Noah, so
there are no missing generations there (Genesis 5:29).
5. Some Hebrew scholars
believe that the name Methuselah means “when he dies it is
sent,” referring to the Flood. Assuming no gaps in the chronology, Methuselah
died the same year the Flood began. Some Jews believed that God gave Noah time
to mourn the death of Methuselah, whom they believe died a week before the
Flood began (Genesis 7:4). If this is
so, then no missing generations can be inserted here. If this were not the
case, then this is the only place in Genesis 5 one might attempt to shoehorn
the missing 22 generations! Would you trust a chronologist who was so careful
to record names and ages yet omit 22 generations in his tabulation in one
place? It simply doesn’t follow.
As we have seen, careful exegesis of the Bible simply does not
allow for an extra 22 generations.
A similar analysis can be done for Genesis 11, which features 10
generations over 355 years, therefore averaging 36 years per generation. Those
who hold to a creation occurring in 10,000 B.C. and the Flood happening in
5,000 B.C. have expanded this time period from 355 years to over 2,600 years.
Assuming each generation lasts 36 years, then there would be 72 generations,
such that for every generation listed, six are missing. If the writer of
Genesis was so careless as to omit over 85 percent of the generations in Genesis
11, why did he waste time giving us the information in the first place? What
purpose would it serve, since it would be so inaccurate?
These examples show the folly of accepting a creation event as
distant as 10,000 B.C. Those who accept even longer ages have a worse problem;
they must insert 10 to 100 times as many “missing generations” in Genesis 5 and
11 as those who hold to a creation of about 10,000 B.C. Interestingly, both
camps loathe explaining where these missing generations are to be inserted. All
they know for sure is that they are missing! Those who hold to the inerrancy of
the Scriptures should reject all attempts to make the earth older than the
Hebrew text warrants, which is about 4000 B.C.
Conclusion
The Scriptures themselves attest to the fact that the secular
dates given for the age of the universe, man’s existence on the earth, and so
on, are not correct, because they are based on the fallible assumptions of
fallible humans. Nothing in observational science contradicts the time-line of
history as recorded in the Bible.
But there are two more reasons that these genealogies are vital.
First, they are given in Scripture to show clearly that the Bible is real
history and that we are all descendants of a real man, Adam; thus all human
beings are related.
Second, the Son of God stepped into this history to fulfill the
promise of Genesis 3:15, the
promise of a Savior. This Savior died and rose again to provide a free gift of
salvation to the descendants of Adam—all of whom are sinners and are separated
from their Creator.
Without the genealogies, how can it be proven that Jesus is the
One who would fulfill this promise? Indeed, perhaps the primary purpose of the
genealogies is to show that Jesus fulfilled the promise of God the Father.
We can trust these genealogies because they are a part of the
infallible, inerrant Word of God.
Help keep
these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
Footnotes
2. Ken Ham, Jason Lisle,
Hugh Ross, Walt Kaiser, The Great Debate: Young Earth vs. Old Earth,
DVD (Kentucky: Answers in Genesis, 2006), program 10, bonus 2. Back
3. Most progressive
creationists believe that the six days of creation were actually long periods
of time, not 24-hour days. Back
6. Note on Luke 3:36 in: John Gill, D.D., An
Exposition of the Old and New Testament; The Whole Illustrated with Notes,
Taken from the Most Ancient Jewish Writings (London: printed for
Mathews and Leigh, 18 Strand, by W. Clowes, Northumberland-Court, 1809).
Edited, revised, and updated by Larry Pierce, 1994–1995 for The Word CD-ROM.
See also chapter 27, “Isn’t the Bible Full of Contradictions?” Back
7. See Larry Vardiman,
Andrew Snelling, and Eguene Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of
the Earth, vol. 2 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research; Chino
Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2005). Back
No comments:
Post a Comment