Skip to main content

Trusting the Genesis Genealogies

For a very long time, people accepted the genealogies in Genesis as accurate chronologies: chronogenealogies. After Christians began ceding science to secularists with the advent of deep time and Darwinism, excuses were found to deny their accuracy.

There are many problems with this, including casting doubt on God's preservation of Scripture, his care for us, trusting Jesus, and a tacit denial of the truth of God's Word from the beginning. People have lost sight of the purposes of the genealogies.

After Christians ceded science to deep time and evolution, people grew to doubt the Genesis genealogies. They are important to understanding theology.
Unsplash / Priscilla Du Preez
On a somewhat side note, someone was hawking his book about leaving atheism and coming to Christ. Since he is in the flaming liberal United Methodist denomination (in which I was raised and my father was a pastor for fifty years), I suspect he has some serious theology problems. His reaction to my comment says a great deal:
Context is vitally important to understanding Scripture, and that not only includes the immediate text, but how passages are treated elsewhere in the Bible. Scripture interprets Scripture. Also, we need to remember to whom it was written, and why, and how it applies to us today. Filtering it through secular opinions and mythologies do violence to the meaning and to the theology presented in the chronogenealogies. Compromisers and fifth column theistic evolutionists tear down the faith.
Many people alive today do not believe that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 present actual history. Also, many professing Christians do not believe that these genealogies contain a complete sequence (without gaps) of the generations from Adam to Abraham. For example, in a piece that appeared on the BioLogos website in July (2021), Richard Middleton asserted, “[I]t would be a mistake to use the genealogies in the primeval history (Genesis 1–11) to calculate the age of the earth or the human race.”1 He claims that reading the Genesis genealogies in this way imposes modern expectations of precision on an ancient text that was written for different purposes. To the contrary, it is current scholars (like Middleton) who impose modern interpretations on the ancient text. Ancient Jewish scholars and essentially all Christian scholars before the mid-19th century understood that these genealogies presented a complete list of the patriarchal names and generations from Adam to Abraham.

You can read the rest and increase your understanding by reading the rest of "The Genesis genealogies: Historical records with deep theological significance."

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Gopher Wood and Noah's Ark

Something that has puzzled readers of the sixth chapter of Genesis is the use of the term gopher wood. Footnotes often say that the "Hebrew term is uncertain", and Bible translations differ — "I know what that means, Cowboy Bob! Noah commanded his sons, "Shem, you gopher water, Ham can gopher more pitch, and Japheth can gopher wood". No. Anyway, Bible translations differ. Many use the term gopher wood, and using the translations in my copy of theWord Bible Software , Coverdale (1535,) Geneva (1587), and Tyndale (1526) translated it as pine. The NIV translates it as cypress and adds the "uncertain" reference. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, WEB all render the term as gopher wood. Credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Cimerondagert  ( CC by-SA 4.0 ) An excellent possibility is that God was not specifying a particular tree that has disappeared since then, but that Noah was to use hardwood. Getting into the Hebrew language, we see the root word tha