Creation Science Rebuttals
Technical Journal (TJ)
Biblical Genealogies
From TJ, Volume 17, Issue 3, December 2003
Review by Greg Neyman
© Old Earth Ministries
First Published 12 March 2006
One of the frequent claims by young
earth creationists is that the genealogies of Genesis do not allow for vast
ages of time. This claim is once again being proclaimed in an article in
Technical Journal, by the young earth author (chemist) Jonathan Sarfati.1
This article was again featured on the Creation Ministries International
website on 12 April 2006. Since I am not a Hebrew expert, I'll only make a
few comments. For the old earth perspective on this issue, I encourage
everyone to check out the old earth link at the end of this review.
In setting up his argument, he says that we should be
looking at three different manuscripts. The first he lists is the Masoretic
Text, which is used by modern Hebrew Bibles and is the basis of most modern
English Old Testaments. The second is the Septuagint, a Greek translation of
the Old Testament. The third is the Samaritan Pentateuch, a Hebrew version
dating to the 1st century BC. Sarfati claims that they all agree within less
than 1400 years for the time from Adam to Abraham (they differ by no more
than 1,400 years).
Date of Creation
Sarfati equates the times for events starting with the
creation of the world at year 1, and finally Abraham’s birth in the year
2008. Using information from a Dr. Hasel, he says the creation was in 4178
BC.
Do the Genealogies Have Gaps?
This depends on which Hebrew expert you talk to. To
answer this question, Sarfati starts by quoting a theologian who supports
his position, which is not surprising. The so-called expert says that to his
knowledge, “there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any
world-class university” who believes there are gaps. This statement needs a
little qualification. What is his definition of a world-class university?
The person making the quote is at Oxford. Universities thought to be in the
same league as Oxford can be numbered on two hands. There are hundreds of
others, however, and some of these do differ in opinion with this Oxford
professor. For instance,
Walter Kaiser of Gordon-Conwell is one that comes to mind.
Next, Sarfati quotes a long age believer, Davis Young,
who says the church fathers thought the world was less than six thousand
years old at the time of Christ, based on the genealogies. This is
misleading, as Davis Young is not stating this as his position, but he is
reporting on other people’s beliefs. Sarfati moves quickly on to Josephus,
who does not appear to accept any gaps.
Grammar
As we move into grammar, Sarfati quotes Dr. Hugh Ross
of Reasons to Believe, who supports gaps in the genealogies. Ross gives the
possibility that a name in the genealogies could be the grandfather of the
next name, or even great-grandfather, or even many generations later. In his
rebuttal, Sarfati claims that “none of his examples of gaps in genealogies
mention the age of the father at the birth of the next name in the line, so
they are irrelevant to the issue of the Genesis genealogies, which do.” Here
you see a common trick of young earth creationists…creating rules of Hebrew
interpretation that support their cause. The same thing can be seen in the
requirement for an ordinal with the word “yom”, which indicates a 24-hour
day.
Concerning the Matthew genealogies, Sarfati says that
the author clearly intended it to be incomplete, so that there would be
three matching sets of 14 names. He says there was no such intention in
Genesis. How does Sarfati know the intention of the author of Genesis? This
is merely guesswork on his part. Sarfati then goes back to his Oxford
expert, saying that in one place (Genesis 5) there is a line of ten
patriarchs, and in Genesis 11 there is nine. The theologian concludes that
there is no basis for an intentional symmetrical arrangement. That’s nice,
but it doesn’t provide any proof against gaps in the genealogies. If
anything, it shows that there is no standard way to report genealogies. If
there is no standard, then gaps present no problems either.
From this point Sarfati discusses the Hebrew grammar,
and the apparent use of an accusative particle (‘et) prior to the
descendant’s name, which according to Sarfati, means that the descendant was
the offspring of the father at the time of the father’s age that is listed
in the verse. I had no problem finding this argument duplicated on other
creation web sites, but did not turn up any other references to the
genealogies of Genesis. This indicates that it is another "young earth"
invented rule of Hebrew, applied by young earth Hebrew scholars.
Where Can the Gaps be Inserted?
Sarfati attempts to show that there are no points in
the genealogy that could plainly accept a gap of time. Interestingly,
although he is happy to point out the places where gaps could not have
occurred, he does not show the possible locations of the gaps. Since Sarfati
did not argue against every possible insertion point, I will let this lie.
The Number of Missing Generations
I agree with Sarfati that the number of missing
generations would have to be large. There is no debate on this issue, nor
does many generations cause any problems from an old earth perspective.
Is Cainan a Gap?
Hugh Ross mentions that Luke 3:36 "Which was the son of
Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was
the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech," contains an extra name, Cainan,
that is not mentioned in Genesis 11:12. "When Arphaxad had lived 35 years,
he became the father of Shelah." Sarfati attributes this to a copyist error.
An early transcriber glanced at line one when he should have glanced at line
three, and inserted an extra Cainan. This is mere speculation in order to
keep Ross from using this argument, and is no way authoritative from a
biblical perspective.
Conclusion
Are there gaps in the genealogies? If you are a young
earth creationist theologian, you will naturally interpret the genealogies
based on your young earth bias, and assume there are no gaps. If you are an
old earth creationist theologian, the opposite is true.
For an excellent article on this issue from the old earth perspective, see
The Genesis Genealogies. It is interesting that the young earth author,
Sarfati, and the old earth author of this article, John Millam, are both
chemists. We have chemists dueling over ancient Hebrew!
1
Sarfati, Jonathan, Biblical Chronogenealogies, TJ 17(3): December
2003. Available online at
https://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
Related Articles
Biblical Interpretation and Theology Articles
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.