FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Genealogies: a question to theistic evolutionists and old Earth creationists
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I know that it is certain that some Biblical genealogies contain gaps. However, genealogies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11, even if one can say that 'beget' means 'to be an ancestor of', provide information on the age of these people when the next one of them was born. For example
Quote:When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
So no matter how one interprets 'father', 'son', 'beget', etc., there's no way round these dates. So how do proponents of Old Earth handle this?
There's something about it.
http://createdevolution.blogspot.com/201...ogies.html
Quote:The phrasing that is used over and over again in these passages could reasonably be translated as follows, I believe:

Person-X lived A years, and [then] was begetting Person-Y.
After he [started] to beget Person-Y, Person-X lived B years;
And he was begetting male and female descendents.
*So all the days of Person-X were A+B years; and he died.

(*This last sentence is only used in Gen. 5.) Without getting into a detailed explanation of this, “son” in Hebrew can mean “male descendent,” “daughter” can mean “female descendent,” and “beget” can be loosely used to mean something like “produce a descendent.” For a defense of this, please see the article linked to below [1].

So, to explain the above phrasing, let me paraphrase and offer an amplified version of the first half. The latter half does not need any amplification.

Person-X lived A years, and then he begot the next progenitor of Person-Y, continuing his ancestral line.
After he begot the next progenitor of Person-Y, Person-X lived B years…

The Hebrew verb form of the first “begot” in this repeated phrase is in the imperfect form, normally indicating ongoing, incomplete, or a progressive action. From what I understand, the word “begot” can genuinely be translated as “[he] was begetting/generating” in both Gen. 5 and 11 for the first instance of the word in the repeated phrase listed above. Most genealogies do not use this verb form for “begot.” The use of “begot” in the imperfect tense is relatively rare when associated with a male subject. There are 499 cases of the Hebrew word “begot” (Strong’s Word H3205), and there are several forms of the word. Genesis 5 and 11 use two rare forms of “begot,” basically meaning “[he] was begetting” and “[he] caused to beget,” though there are no English equivalents to these Hebrew words. The “[he] was begetting” form is used 49 times in the Old Testament but only 14 times outside of Gen. 5 and 11. Of those 14 other times it is usually used in connection with begetting multiple descendents, as you would expect since the verb form can indicate ongoing action. The “[he] caused to beget” form is only used 18 times in the whole Old Testament and only once outside of Gen. 5 and 11. Also, only the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 use these verb forms consistently with each new generation. I don’t think the significance of the uniqueness of these two genealogies can be overestimated.

So, the “beget”-verb forms are very unusual and consistent between Genesis 5 and 11 and supports the interpretation that many generations are missing. That being said, it looks clear that there are no generations missing between Adam and Seth, Seth and Enosh, Lamech and Noah, Noah and Shem, and Terah and Abraham. However, for poetic reasons, I suggest that Moses intentionally kept all the verb tenses the same.

Finally, the repeated, consistent use of the phrase, “And [he] was begetting sons [male descendents] and daughters [female descendents],” is another possible indication of missing generations. The “sons” and “daughters,” as we’ve noted already, can mean more generally male and female descendents. So, there is no need for this to mean that every individual had at minimum five children: the primary male descendent, plus two sons and two daughters. All this could indicate is that they had children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren—many descendents of both gender. This phrase is nonspecific, I believe, because it is poetically drawing attention to the fact that large time intervals passed, and countless descendents were born. If it was only speaking of the immediate next generation of children, then it would have been significant to mention how many sons and daughters were born, as in 2 Chr. 11:21 and 13:21, or as in the case of Job 42:13. It makes better sense to interpret these references to male and female descendents as an ongoing multiplication of children and grandchildren, etc. In that case, it would be impossible or insignificant to place a specific number on the male and female descendents born.

In line with this interpretation, we see that when specific information is given about children, as in the case of Noah and Terah, the father of Abraham, they do not always have five or more children. Noah had only sons and no daughters (Gen. 5:32). Terah had apparently only three sons and no daughters (Gen. 11:26). In the Gen. 5 genealogy, we have the first eight generations having, “sons and daughters,” but the last father, Noah, only has three sons and no daughters. Similarly, in the Gen. 11 genealogy, we have the first eight generations having, “sons and daughters,” but the last father, Terah, only has three sons and no daughters. To me personally, that seems like much more than an unlikely coincidence. It fits in beautifully with the interpretation of these genealogies as being telescoped with countless generations missing.

Here’s an example to help summarize this interpretation. When it says, literally, “Eber lived 34 years, and [then] was-begetting Peleg,” it means that after Eber lived 34 years, he begot the specific child who belonged to the ancestral line leading eventually to Peleg. The “was begetting” verb allows for this interpretation by being imprecise and possibly alluding to ongoing, multiple births or generations that produced the descendent Peleg. When it says, literally, “After he caused-to-generate Peleg, Eber lived 430 years,” it means that Eber lived 430 years after he begot the specific child belonging to the ancestral line of Peleg. You see, Eber probably had several children who were not a part of Peleg’s ancestral line. When Eber begot the child who was a part of that line, he did his part to cause the eventual birth of Peleg. Eber could do no more than provide one link in the chain leading to Peleg. Once Eber made that link in the chain, he lived 430 years, and had many male and female descendents, and then he died.
Just follow what the Bible says , the world really is not that old.
(09-09-2014, 03:11 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]I know that it is certain that some Biblical genealogies contain gaps. However, genealogies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11, even if one can say that 'beget' means 'to be an ancestor of', provide information on the age of these people when the next one of them was born. For example
Quote:When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
So no matter how one interprets 'father', 'son', 'beget', etc., there's no way round these dates. So how do proponents of Old Earth handle this?
Genesis describes how God made many things before He created Adam. Long before Man, God said: “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.." "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” etc. It wasn't until the earth was made and ready that God made Man. And even then, Genesis 2:7 describes how "God made man from the slime of the earth" (some translations use "dust" or "soil")---but to go from slime or dust to rational man implies a form of evolution which may have indeed have taken millions of years, since a billion years of time is like nothing to God Who exists outside of time.All the scientific evidence shows that the earth is older than 6,000 years.
(09-09-2014, 05:59 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Just follow what the Bible says , the world really is not that old.
The world and the earth are two different things. Our world is the present condition of man in society, culture, etc. The earth is the physical globe on which we live. Relatively speaking Man has been on the earth a very short period of time compared to the age of planet earth itself.
It is tempting as traditional Catholics to seek comfort in certainties. But we can never seek comfort in certainties.

I myself went from 'certain' positions, firstly 'theistic evolution', then 'young earth creationism'.

My view now, is more moderate. I don't think we can know, nor will never know, how all this was created. I don't think we'll ever know, until the Last Day.

(09-09-2014, 05:59 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Just follow what the Bible says , the world really is not that old.
The Bible says nothing about the age of the world. It might say something about the age of humanity, though.

"Gabriel Serafin" Wrote:Genesis describes how God made many things before He created Adam. Long before Man, God said: “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.." "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” etc. It wasn't until the earth was made and ready that God made Man. And even then, Genesis 2:7 describes how "God made man from the slime of the earth" (some translations use "dust" or "soil")---but to go from slime or dust to rational man implies a form of evolution which may have indeed have taken millions of years, since a billion years of time is like nothing to God Who exists outside of time.All the scientific evidence shows that the earth is older than 6,000 years.
Perhaps. But still, not only does evolution say the world is billions of years old but also that modern humans have been there for at least 60,000 years. Abraham lived around 2,000 BC. So about 55,000 years between Adam and Abraham. Which 55,000 years are simply way too much if we read the plain English or Polish text of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11.
The passage I pasted in the second post of this thread attempts to explain this. Do you agree with its approach?

"Miles Immaculatae" Wrote:My view now, is more moderate. I don't think we can know, nor will never know, how all this was created. I don't think we'll ever know, until the Last Day.
Of course we won't know how exactly all this was created. But we may try to find out when more or less all this was created.
As catholics our rule for interpretation of Scripture should be what Leo XIII writes in Providentissimus Deus: “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.”

The obvious interpretation of the genealogies is that Humanity is not very old. That is how catholics have always undertood the Bible, and that´s good enough for me. It was only once the arch-heretic, Teillard de Chardin started spreading his lies about human evolution that catholics started believing humans had been around for millions of years. Modernist theologians then forced the texts to say something nobody had ever read in them.
(09-10-2014, 11:14 AM)santodomingo Wrote: [ -> ]As catholics our rule for interpretation of Scripture should be what Leo XIII writes in Providentissimus Deus: “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.”

The obvious interpretation of the genealogies is that Humanity is not very old. That is how catholics have always undertood the Bible, and that´s good enough for me. It was only once the arch-heretic, Teillard de Chardin started spreading his lies about human evolution that catholics started believing humans had been around for millions of years. Modernist theologians then forced the texts to say something nobody had ever read in them.
Not necessarily is the passage from the second post contrary to the rules provided by Leo XIII. Apparently Hebrew language does allow for this interpretation as a literal one. Hebrew was much, much more vague in its vocabulary.

(09-10-2014, 10:23 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]not only does evolution say the world is billions of years old but also that modern humans have been there for at least 60,000 years. Abraham lived around 2,000 BC. So about 55,000 years between Adam and Abraham. Which 55,000 years are simply way too much if we read the plain English or Polish text of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. The passage I pasted in the second post of this thread attempts to explain this. Do you agree with its approach?


The fields of geology and paleontology have made a good case for the earth being quite old. And the premise that God might have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of a human being's body should not shocking to a Catholic, in fact it was proposed by St. Augustine in the 4th Century[/size] long before Charles Darwin. What's more, we do know that Adam was around before Eve came into the [/size]picture. [size=13px]



The problem with personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture is that it has led to countless erroneous assumptions, including ushering many people to reject the Church. Thus St. Augustine gave advice for all Christians who attempt to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. Here is what he said:


"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Pages: 1 2