Interpreting the Life Spans in the Genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 (original) (raw)
Related papers
How Old was Father Abraham? Re-examining the Patriarchal Lifespans in Light of Archaeology
The long lifespans in Genesis are only a problem for those who hold to inerrancy. If the patriarchal narratives are merely legends, then exaggerated lifespans fit right in. However for those who believe Genesis records actual events about real people, the lifespans raise significant questions. Skeletal and tooth wear data from ancient times indicates an average lifespan of around forty years old, not over 900 years as in Genesis 5, or even the almost 200 years of the later patriarchs. But the problems are not limited to scientific data outside the Bible. A face-value reading of the patriarchal ages contradicts other Scriptures. Plus, a chronology based on these lifespans is biblically inconsistent, and contradicts the archaeology of the Intermediate Bronze and Middle Bronze ages. Two approaches have been used to reconcile these unusual lifespans with historical reality. The concordist approach attempts to show that the biblical text is actually in harmony with an unbiased reading of the scientific evidence. The accommodationist approach acknowledges the conflict and accepts that the divine author of Genesis may have allowed pre-scientific language and perhaps even erroneous concepts in order to portray truth to the original audience. This paper will outline reasons from both inside and outside the Bible why the patriarchal lifespans were never intended to be read as face value numbers, and will survey a history of interpretation. This paper proposes that the Genesis genealogies reflect the authentic Middle Bronze age practice of using schematic and exaggerated lifespans. A symbolic interpretation of the patriarchal lifespans from an evangelical perspective will be proposed and defended, and the proposal will be applied to other extraordinary lifespans in Scripture.
2020
Ages of patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 are usually interpreted as literal, symbolic or fictional. We suggest alternative interpretation of literal one. In Genesis 5 not only age of patriarch is abnormally long but also the ratio of maximal age to minimal begetting age is unrealistic from common human experience (the ratio is approximately 15). Ratio of maximal to begetting ages of postdiluvian patriarchs prior to Abraham does not make sense also. We assume that age in source text was written by Hebrew letters. Numerical values of last three letters of Hebrew alphabet differed from their modern quantity (110, 120 and 130 instead 200,300 and 400). We recalculated age of patriarchs using these values of Hebrew letters. For all patriarchs ratio of maximal lifespan to minimal begetting age decreases to realistic value of 6.6. We hypothesize that period of time used for age calculation (we'll call this period shanah) was 50 days before the Flood and 6 months after the Flood. Realistic...
WHAT WAS THE REAL AGE OF THE SUPER-LONG-LIVED BIBLICAL CHARACTERS
WHAT WAS THE REAL AGE OF THE SUPER-LONG-LIVED BIBLICAL CHARACTERS?, 2024
The extraordinary longevity attributed to the biblical characters of Genesis has always been a topic of discussion and controversy, and although it is scientifically impossible to consider a person living several centuries like Methuselah (969 years), there are still believers today who defend the infallibility of the Bible and the absurd version that people lived longer in the remote past. This terrifying longevity of the antediluvian characters and the descendants of Noah ends in the time of the Semitic patriarchs (incredibly long-lived too, although to a lesser degree), who from Abraham and his father Terah to Moses and Joshua, all of them will live more than 100 years (according to the sacred scriptures), Abraham reaching 175 years, and his son Isaac 180 years. In this essay a theory is proposed to explain, what appears to be an error of origin, when it could actually be the different methods or calendars used to measure time in different periods, taken by the scribes of the Old Testament (OT) of the Bible (during the Babylonian Exile (597-538 BC) as if they were identical to those used in their own time. In antediluvian prehistory a lunar calendar of 29.53 days was surely used, and the age of a person was expressed in the count of lunar cycles, 12.37 per year, while in later times, the Semitic patriarchs counted the seasonal changes (winter and summer, two per year) that a person experienced, to determine their age. Once the method used for the calendrical measurement of time in different periods has been defined, and the appropriate interpretation of the Hebrew term to indicate years, a table is provided with the respective corrections of the ages of the biblical characters from Adam to Solomon.
Patriarchal Life Spans and Other Biblical Evidences for a Literal Adam and a Pre-Adamic Race
Gary T. Mayer, 2020
Since Charles Darwin made the theory of evolution popular, the church has been faced with the problem of either denying the validity of evolution or finding a way to interpret the Bible that will harmonize with both an old-earth scenario and with the belief that humans evolved from lower forms of life. This article will not deny either of these scientific conclusions. Its purpose will be to discuss some of the proposed interpretations of the Bible's teachings that have been presented for the purpose of harmonizing the Bible and science, showing that some of these have serious problems. But first I will present an alterative view that has both mathematical and exegetical support to undergird it. Two benefits that are inherent in this view are its simplicity and its employment of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Also it does not contradict any New Testament teaching, which should be a requirement for any methodology employed to discover the Bible's teaching on human origins. I appreciate all those who have taken in hand to harmonize an inspired view of Scripture with the present views of the science community.
Adam to Abraham: An Unconventional Dating Scheme
A well-known method of arranging the genealogical data in Genesis 5 and 11 is to treat all the patriarchs after Adam as immediate sons. This study proposes an alternative scheme. The longevity of the patriarchs allowed their lifetimes to be used to keep track of time and events. A patriarch who cannot be identified as an immediate son is therefore counted successively rather than by his begetting age. For example, after Enosh died, Kenan became the next timekeeper patriarch. He was chosen because he was the youngest descendant in the promised lineage.
Caught! A Graphical Comparison of Chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11.
We tend to take for granted the ages of the pre-Abrahamic patriarchs given in mainstream translations of the Bible. These ages are based on the Hebrew text. The ages in the Greek Septuagint are different. In most cases, they differ by exactly one hundred years. Others have shown that the Septuagint figures are more reliable. This brief paper shows the differences in graphical form.
Answers Research Journal, 2017
Most conservative scholars who view the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous chronology from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham claim that the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) preserves the original begetting ages given to Moses by Yahweh. Calculations derived from the MT yield a timespan for this period of about 2008 years. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) yields a chronology for this era of 3394 years, 1386 years greater than the MT. In some LXX manuscripts of Genesis 5:25, Methuselah was 167 years old when he fathered Lamech, placing Methuselah's death 14 years beyond the Deluge. This obvious problem often leads to a swift dismissal of any possibility that the LXX might preserve the original begetting ages and remaining years of life for each named patriarch in Genesis 5 and 11. This article will examine this issue and advance four main points: (1) the figure of 187 for Methuselah is original to the LXX translation and to Moses; (2) the reading of 167 in certain manuscripts of the LXX is a scribal error which occurred early in its complex transmissional history; (3) the appearance of 167 in some LXX manuscripts does not automatically negate the overall validity of the LXX's primeval chronology; and (4) numerous lines of historical and textual evidence suggest the young-earth creation community should remain open and willing to contemplate the strong likelihood that the primeval chronology of the LXX reflects most of the numbers that Moses originally recorded in Genesis 5 and 11.
Revisiting Genesis 5 and 11: a Closer look at the Chronogenealogies
Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2015
The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are closely connected with the narratives that precede and follow them. The many exegetical and thematic links provide evidence that the genealogies are 'complete', in the sense that they contain no gaps.