not employed in a literal sense. So in verses 15, 16: ?Canaan begat? the Jebusite,? a tribe; the ancestors of which would have been called Jesus. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, however, are names, not of tribes or nations, but of individuals; see Prof. Edward Konig, of Bonn, in S. S. nines, Dec. 14, 1901. E. G. Robinson: ?We may pretty safely go back to the time of Abraham, but no further.? Bibliotheca Sacra, 1899:403 ? ?The lists in Genesis may relate to families and not to individuals.?

G. F. Wright, Ant, and Origin of Human Race, lect. II ? ?When in David?s time it is said that ?Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasures? ( <132316>1 Chronicles 23:16; 26:24), Gershom was the immediate son of Moses, but Shebuel was separated by many generations from Gershom. So when Seth is said to have begotten Enosh when he was 105 years old (( <010506>Genesis 5:6), it is, according to Hebrew usage, capable of meaning that Enosh was descended from the branch of Seth?s line which set off at the 105th year, with any number of intermediate links omitted.? The appearance of completeness in the text may be due to alteration of the text in the course of centuries; see Bib. Com., 1:30. In the phrase ?Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham? ( <400101>Matthew 1:1) thirty-eight to forty generations are omitted. It may be so in some of the Old Testament genealogies. There is room for a hundred thousand years, if necessary (Conant). W.H. Green, in Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1890:303, and in Independent, June 18, 1891 ? ?The Scriptures furnish us with no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham. The Mosaic records do not fix, and were not intended to fix, the precise date of the Flood or of the Creation? They give a series of specimen lives, with appropriate numbers attached, to show by selected examples what was the original term of human life. To make them a complete and continuous record, and to deduce from them the antiquity of the race, is to put them to a use they were never intended to serve.?

Comparison with secular history also shows that no such length of time as 100,000 years for man?s existence upon earth seems necessary. Rawlinson, in Jour. Christ. Philosophy, 1883:339-364, dates the beginning of the Chaldean monarchy at 2400 BC. Lenormant puts the entrance of the Sanskritic Indians into Hindustan at 2500 BC. The earliest Vedas are between 1200 and 1000 BC (Max Muller). Call of Abraham, probably 1945 BC. Chinese history possibly began as early as 2356 BC (Legge). The old Empire in Egypt possibly began as early as 2650 BC. Rawlinson puts the flood at 3600 BC and adds 2000 years between the deluge and the creation, making the age of the world 1,886 + 3,600+ 2,000 = 7,486. S.R. Pattison, in Present Day Tracts, 3: no. 13, concludes

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment