I come to beliefs about the past by using His word.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Date for the flood.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
Yes, it was before Abraham, precisely 427 years before Abraham.
Jewish Calendar - How to explain the difference of exactly 240 years in the Jewish calendar? | Pure Bible Forum (and see www.sinaiticus.net )
37818
Well-Known Member
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, . . ."
37818
Well-Known Member
Which was handed down by others between God and you. God's word is still God's word.
Point? Hope you are not referring to duo lineages of Mary and Joseph.
That is how He said He hands it down. He told the disciples that He would bring all things to their remembrance. That is GOD getting it to us through human minds.
37818
Well-Known Member
There are gaps in the given genealogies. And not without reasons.
37818
Well-Known Member
And you know that how?
1 Corinthians 2:v.10-11
11 What man knoweth the things of a man, save the SPIRIT of MAN which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no MAN, but the Spirit of God.
10 But GOD hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of GOD.---THE WORD IS GOD---""" For the Word of GOD is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged Sword, ..."""Hebrews 4:v.12. He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.Revelation 19:v.13
Matthew 11:v.27
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no MAN knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any MAN the Father, save the Son, and he TO WHOMSOEVER the Son will reveal Him.
John 17:v.1 to 3
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him.
3 And this is life eternal; they might know thee the only true GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Last edited:
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, . . ." which was the son of Methuselah, which was the son of Enoch; which was the son of Jared; which was the son of Mahalalel; which was the son of Kenan; which was the son of Enosh; which was the son of Seth; which was the son of Adam.
Unless gaps completely skewed the timeframes, who cares?
I think that was answered by another poster. Why, are you suggesting the gospels are lies? We do find Jesus speaking in them and one of the things He says is that He would bring all things He had spoken to their memory.
37818
Well-Known Member
How does ". . . of Cainan . . . " not skew the time line, assuming there are no unnamed names? ,Luke 3:36, Genesis 11:10-13 Hebrew versus Greek years.
37818
Well-Known Member
I don't. You have false beliefs about the copies.
Not sure what the problem is exactly in your view. It seems to be with Cainan and Salah. Well, since Luke is also concerned with the lineage of Mary, if her relatives in some instance was different, would that not be mentioned? If Arpaaxdad had sons named Cainan and Salah and from each of these came Mary or Joseph, would that be a problem? Must we view this as some major destruction of the timeline?
So what copy is wrong in truth then? Keep us posted.
37818
Well-Known Member
". . .
Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, . . ." The Hebrew omits Cainan. The 5th century LXX has Cainan in all the OT places as the son of Arphaxad.
Great, so what if they were twins, or he had 2 sons? One being the forefather of Mary, and the other of Joseph? In other words, maybe there was no reason to include the guy in the older manuscripts, but when we are tracing the ancestors of Mary in the New Testament, of course that is mentioned?
37818
Well-Known Member
The split between Joseph and Mary's genealogies are with Nathaniel, for Mary and Solomon, for Joseph.
Looking at one site, I see this
"
Both genealogies had to be recorded to establish Christ's right to rule on David's throne. Joseph's genealogy shows that Christ was a legal descendant of Jeconiah and thus legally could not sit on the throne of David in the nation Judah by inheriting the right solely through Joseph.
Further, the genealogies prove the virgin birth: The curse on Jeconiah's line would have passed on to Christ if He were Joseph's natural son, but He was not—He was the Son of God the Father, begotten by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was Mary's son descended from Nathan. Jesus can inherit rule over Judah because of Mary's marriage to Joseph, whose genealogy shows he was Heli's son-in-law."
Why Does Jesus Have Two Different Genealogies (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38)?
So Luke does seem to be about Mary. What verse are you talking about for a split?
- Status