Primeval History

Steinmann needed to show that the chronogenealogical formula throughout Genesis 5 and 11 ("When A had lived X years, he brought forth B") indicates not when B was born but rather when A performed the causing action that initiated the process that culminated in B's birth. His reply, however, does not even attempt to establish this bedrock premise; he continues to treat it as self-evident. My rejoinder demonstrates that Steinmann has not successfully defended the semantics of causation that underlies his unique case for chronological gaps.

"Evangelical scholars are disposed to use hermeneutical procedures originally developed on the basis of non-Christian presuppositions. They make minimal changes to these procedures, of course, to avoid directly denying the possibility of miracles or the divine authority of Scripture. But minimal changes are not enough. We ought to be rethinking the entire process of interpretation on the basis of sound presuppositions." Vern S. Poythress

This article demonstrates that even if the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 contain genealogical gaps, they do not contain chronological gaps. The assumption of the last 125 years that genealogical gaps entail chronological gaps is a non sequitur. In fact, chronological gaps are semantically impossible. The timeline from Adam to Abraham is intact.

The nature and function of the Cain genealogy (Gen. 4:17-24) are here reconsidered. Instead of a general overview of the fundaments of civilisation, it is shown, through a re-examination of Jabal's specialty, that the Cain genealogy focuses on the society of Canaanite metalworkers and musicians/poets, the Qenites (= Kenites), and their status as YHWH's earliest worshippers. This analysis also reveals that the genealogy of Cain preserved the memory of the most important events in the development of copper metallurgy in the southern Levant-the transition from an archaic to an advanced mode of smelting, in the early fourth millennium BCE, and the subsequent specialisation that differentiated producers of copper from producers of metallic implements. These observations suggest that the Cain genealogy constitutes, together with the story of Cain and Abel, a coherent myth of Qenite origin. Consequently, the exposition of the Cain genealogy before and independently of the lineage from Adam to Israel becomes an unexpected feature. It is concluded that this situation stems from the need to demonstrate the Qenites' identity as the former people of YHWH and to separate them as far as possible from the emergence of YHWH's new people, Israel.*

The question of Kainan’s inclusion in Luke 3:36, Genesis 10:24, 11:13–14 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24 has been the subject of debate for many centuries. This article will survey “new” evidence for Kainan in manuscripts (MSS) of Luke and the Septuagint (LXX). The evidence itself is actually not “new” at all, but has been ignored in modern discussions about Kainan’s originality, especially by scholars who reject his inclusion in Luke’s Gospel. Moreover, we will present numerous lines of evidence and argumentation for Kainan’s original inclusion in Luke, the Septuagint, and yes, even the original Hebrew text of Genesis.

Exegetical issues in Gen 1:1-2:3 are discussed in ten theses that invite interdisciplinary dialogue. The genre of the passage is understood to be a „report“ of a „poetic narrative“ (thesis 1). The theological creation-word bārā’ „to create“ is found to be used coreferentially with ‘āśāh „to make“ and does not, in and of itself, express creare ex nihilo (thesis 2). The possibility of creatio ex nihilo is cautiously affirmed, but it is not of primary interest to the creation report (theses 3 & 4). Gen 1:1 and 2:4a are interpreted as headings that summarize 1:2-2:3 and 2:4b-4:26, respectively (theses 5 & 6). The „tohuwabohu“ in Gen 1:2 should not be taken in an all-too negative sense (thesis 7), and the pre-creation theory must be rejected (thesis 8). At least in the opinion of the author of Genesis the creation days have the same length (thesis 9). The question of when the fall of the angels occurred must be left open (thesis 10).

In several articles, I have argued that the internal, external and historical evidence supports the originality of the longer primeval chronology found (mostly) in the LXX. Thus far, the research has led to the conclusion that the MT’s primeval chronology was deliberately reduced in the post 70 AD period by 1250 years. One of the objections to this proposed reconstruction is the lower begetting ages found in Genesis 5 of the SP. From Adam to Mahalalel, and then Enoch, these figures match those found in the Masoretic Text. Some scholars have argued their matching character favors them as the original text. Since I have proposed that the lower begetting ages in the MT are the result of deliberate and systematic deflation, an explanation for the independent appearance of these particular figures in the SP must be offered. The purpose of this article is to present a plausible theory explaining why the SP was also deflated in Genesis 5.

Que l’humanité ait eu un ancêtre commun, tout le monde en convient, mais depuis l’arrivée de Darwin l’identité de ce premier homme a été bouleversée, le Noé du déluge universel devant être remplacé par le Néandertal de la dernière période glaciaire. Cette cosmogonie athée a cependant été avancée sans aucune preuve scientifique et, plus grave, son postulat fondamental d’un homme qui serait issu d’un singe est contredit par les lois de la génétique qui interdisent l’interfécondité entre deux espèces, même si leur code génétique est proche. La vérité sur l’origine de l’homme est-elle accessible à l’historien? Oui, car la chronologie est l’œil de l’Histoire. La chronologie absolue permet ainsi de faire subir un “test de paternité” aux deux prétendants, en ce qu’elle permet de déterminer précisément l’avènement de l’espèce humaine: quelques milliers d’années seulement (Noé) ou des centaines de milliers d’années (Néandertal), voire même de plusieurs millions d’années pour le dernier arrivé (Toumaï). Comme on peut l'imaginer la question des origines est sensible: il est toutefois possible de réunir témoins, suspects et victimes devant le tribunal de l'Histoire. L'audience est ouverte.
https://www.lulu.com/shop/gerard-gertoux/noé-ouet-néandertal-père-de-lhumanité-verdict-de-la-chronologie/paperback/product-1dze99gk.html?q=gertoux&page=1&pageSize=4

Historians consider the biblical account of the Deluge as a myth. However, this famous event occurred at the earliest times of recorded history (Sumerian King List). Today scientists believe in the last ice age called Pleistocene ending in 10,000 BCE, but there is no witness (prehistory) of this planetary cataclysmic event and its existence is based solely on the (controversial) interpretation of its consequences and their dating. The existence of erratic blocks and the disappearance of mammoths are presented as evidence of the last glaciation, but contrary to what one might think 14C dating provides conflicting results. Dating obtained by calibrated 14C is considered absolute by most experts but confrontation with the Egyptian chronology, in which some dates are fixed by astronomy, reverses this widespread belief. The biblical and Sumerian accounts of the Deluge (in year 600 of Noah/Ziusudra) are very similar and suppose a dating around 3170 BCE according to the Septuagint. The period 3170-2800 is very poorly documented, the only remarkable event is the construction of the Tower of Babel then its abandonment and the emergence of languages. Many scholars estimate that these mythological texts have no historical value, but several Sumerian and Babylonian inscriptions have confirmed the antiquity of this ancient ziggurat and the name of its builder. In addition, Sumerian stories confirm the biblical version on four key points: a universal deluge; only one language at the origin; construction of the Tower of Babel and a sudden and simultaneous onset of languages (like Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, etc.). Last controversial issue: human longevity seems to have remained constant (ca. 110 years), but contrary to what popular common sense suggests, human limits are difficult to set by science and studies on a potentially endless longevity provide amazing data in accordance with the Bible.
https://www.lulu.com/shop/gerard-gertoux/noah-and-the-deluge-chronological-historical-and-archaeological-evidence/paperback/product-1mqm28d8.html

In September of 2018, Lita Cosner and Dr. Robert Carter of Creation Ministries International wrote a critique of two articles I published under the auspices of the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project. Their article, “Is the Septuagint a superior text for the Genesis genealogies?”, can be found on the CMI website. I recommend that the reader simultaneously read my exposition and interaction below, along with their online posting.

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.

For the last three centuries, Children’s Bibles have often been the first encounter children have with the Bible, and text and pictures together have been instrumental in forming lasting
impressions. Used as tools in families, religious education, and culture making, children’s Bibles are suspect, because as tools for Biblical Education, they make it a point to alter the biblical text.

It is the purpose of this thesis to uncover the values and presuppositions that authors rely on when they transform the Bible for children. Children’s Bibles are examined from their origins in the Enlightenment, which resulted in children’s literature and its sub-genre: children’s Bibles. Children’s literature, as is known today, was formed during the Enlightenment (or Age of Reason) and relies on several insights from this important time in history, including education and childhood. It follows that children’s Bibles are
aligned to the same trend and are made with the same preunderstanding. Combined with an Enlightenment-created understanding of children’s Bibles is the related idea of modern religious pedagogy; that formulates the Bible towards modern views on the Bible and the nature of childhood. These factors serve the background of modern children’s Bibles, an understanding that is a guiding assumption in viewing retellings from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as well as twentieth-century and contemporary versions. The result of these observations is a contrast between Bible story retellings in Genesis 1-11 with the biblical text.

The individual numbers in Gen 5 do not derive from any of the Pentateuchal sources, but were purposefully composed by the (Priestly) redactor of the Pentateuch to combine together data from the different sources and traditions in the present text. Deliberate reinterpretation of non-Priestly data by means of the redactional number-system provides an explanation of the basic unit of a year which elapses between conception and birth, the chronological framework of the divine »day« which lasts a thousand years, and the 17th day of the 2nd month as the decisive date in the Flood story. The same system applies to the individual numbers of years which are supplied in the MT of Gen 5 and are to be reckoned up in accordance with it.

Die einzelnen Zahlenwerte in Gen 5 gehen nicht auf eine Pentateuchquelle zurück, sondern sind vom priesterlichen Redaktor des Pentateuch bewusst so komponiert worden, dass sie »Informationen« der verschiedenen Quellen und Traditionen im vorliegenden Text miteinander verbinden. Wie die Grundeinheit von einem Jahr, die zwischen Zeugung und Geburt einzurechnen ist, der chronologische Rahmen eines Tausend-Jahre-Gottestages und der 17. 2. als einschneidendes Datum im Sintflutbericht sich jeweils als bewusste Umdeutung nichtpriesterlicher »Informationen« durch das kompositionelle Zahlensystem erklären lassen, so auch die einzelnen in Gen 5 angegebenen und danach auszurechnenden Jahreszahlen des masoretischen Textes.

The goal of this article is to update the ABR community of supporters and other interested readers on the present state of the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project. The project officially began in 2016 (with its unofficial roots extending back to 2010). The research has produced substantial fruit, and as a result, ABR is pleased to announce plans to publish our first book, tentatively titled, "From Adam to Abraham: The Case for the Septuagint’s Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11." This update will survey the goals of the project, describe new developments and the present direction of our research, answer some questions we have received about Genesis 5 and 11 from supporters, and briefly outline plans for publication(s).

Read the rest of this paper here: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2017/04/26/From-Adam-to-Abraham-An-Update-on-the-Genesis-5-and-11-Research-Project.aspx

The key to interpreting גִּבּוֹר צַיִד לִפִנֵי יְהוָה in Gen 10:9 lies not so much in לִפְנֵי , but יְהוָה , which posits a relation between Nimrod and YHWH that expresses the superlative with regard to the
strength of Nimrod’s abilities. Connections between Gen 10:8-12 and 11:1-9 reinforce a negative assessment of Nimrod’s character.

This article sheds historical light on William Henry Green's influential article "Primeval Chronology" (1890), establishes the meaning of the hiphil of ‫ילד‬ (translated "begat" in the AV) throughout Genesis 5 and 11, and analyzes Andrew Steinmann's recent case for chronological gaps. Interpreters did not challenge the chronological intent of the Genesis genealogies until the ascendancy of Darwinism in the 1860s. Green's article became the most famous attempt to disrupt the timeline. As a young scholar, Green had ardently defended the chronology, but prevailing scientific claims finally compelled him to abandon this conviction. Recent scholarship (as well as a censored article from the mid-1890s) has demonstrated that Green only showed the possibility of genealogical gaps, which do not entail chronological gaps. Steinmann bases his unprecedented argument for chronological gaps on an idiosyncratic semantics of causation (which he applies to the hiphil of ילד) that contradicts the consensus among Hebraists and other linguists.

Robots and the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) have been the subject of science fiction for decades. With the increasing role of AI in society, some are predicting that AI will make humanity obsolete, if not extinct. Isaac Asimov’s collection of short stories, I, Robot examines one scenario for the evolution of AI and its relationship to humanity. This paper examines various themes raised in I, Robot by reading it in conversation with the Primeval history of Genesis 1–11, in particular chapters 1–4. The themes examined include myth building, the imago Dei, the Fall, and the direction of history. A comparative reading of the two texts demonstrates how the development of AI will not threaten humanity’s status as imago Dei. It does however challenge humanity not to capitulate to the narrative of the inevitable rise of AI to replace much of our role in carrying out the cultural mandate. Instead, as God’s agents in the world, we are called to participate in the bringing of order of out chaos, instead of capitulating to our own creations.

This article argues that a ‘prophetic’ redaction of Yhwh's successive dealings with Saul and David in 1 Samuel 15–16 and 2 Samuel 7 provides a meaningful structural parallel with the ‘epic’ (or non-P) portion of the Primeval History, and that this sequence of material from 1–2 Samuel provides a more compelling frame of reference for the epic portion of the Primeval History than the election of Abraham and his line immediately following. More specifically, this article proposes that the epic portion of the Primeval History reformulates Yhwh's perpetual acceptance of the line of David as a cosmic reconciliation between divinity and humankind. This argument is supported through a combination of literary analysis and review of various accounts of the composition-history of these texts.

One of the most important goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development concerns life on land (SDG15). It seems that among the issues mentioned in SDG15, soil degradation and preservation is the matter which is least studied in theory and most neglected in practice. “Soil is the key to life on this planet – the foundation for all terrestrial ecosystems”. For centuries, soil has mainly been seen as a source of goods. However, with the increasing human impact on the environment, the close links between soil and a number of environmental issues, such as sustainability, climate change, and loss of soil organic matter and nutrients, have been recognized. All soil functions depend on its physical, chemical and biological properties. They determine the quality of the soil. This in turn guarantees whether or not the soil can provide its services.

One of the most important goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development concerns life on land (SDG15). It seems that among the issues mentioned in SDG15, soil degradation and preservation is the matter which is least studied in theory and most neglected in practice. “Soil is the key to life on this planet – the foundation for all terrestrial ecosystems”. For centuries, soil has mainly been seen as a source of goods. However, with the increasing human impact on the environment, the close links between soil and a number of environmental issues, such as sustainability, climate change, and loss of soil organic matter and nutrients, have been recognized. All soil functions depend on its physical, chemical and biological properties. They determine the quality of the soil. This in turn guarantees whether or not the soil can provide its services.