Defenders 3: Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 16): Genealogies in Genesis 1-11 (continued)

Summary

---

Defenders Podcast: Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 16): Genealogies in Genesis 1–11 (continued)

Date: June 12, 2019
Host: Dr. William Lane Craig
Main Theme:
An in-depth discussion of the genealogies in Genesis 1–11, their historical and theological functions, interpretative challenges concerning the ages and symmetries, and comparison with ancient Near Eastern king lists.

---

1. Overview of Episode Theme

This episode continues an analytical exploration of the genealogies found in Genesis chapters 1–11. Dr. Craig and participants discuss whether these genealogies are intended as literal history, their structure and function, and how they compare to other ancient genealogical and king lists (e.g., Sumerian and Babylonian), with attention to their literary and theological significance. The conversation addresses challenges involved in interpreting the ages and symmetries found in these genealogies, engaging a range of scholarly views and participant perspectives.

---

2. Key Discussion Points and Insights

A. Nature and Purpose of Genesis Genealogies

• Genealogies as Chronological Backbone: The genealogies in Genesis 1–11 provide a structural framework for the primeval history, linking narrative elements (00:17).
• Not Just History: While merging into clearly historical figures (like Abraham), ancient genealogies in the Bible serve multiple roles—domestic, political, juridical, and religious—not strictly historiographic (00:56).

B. Analysis of the Table of Nations (Genesis 10)

• Non-biological Groupings: The Table of Nations (Genesis 10) lists nations and people groups as "descendants" of Noah’s sons, but many names refer to places or tribes rather than literal sons. Groupings are often based on geographic, linguistic, or political factors (01:59).
• Jewish Commentator’s View: Nahum Sarna observes that the language ("son," "father," "begot") is not meant to be pressed literally, and the genealogies show deliberate, eclectic classification rather than strict biological descent (03:14).

C. Structure, Symmetry, and Telescoping in Genealogies

• Symmetry in the Lists: There are deliberate symmetries—ten generations from Adam to Noah and ten from Shem to Abraham—mirrored in other ancient Near Eastern documents and even in Ruth 4 (06:12).
• Artificial Schematization: Sarna and others argue that these symmetries are literary devices signifying meaningful epochs, not strict historical chronology (07:52).
• Telescoping: Ancient genealogies commonly omit generations ("gaps") and can compress family lines for theological or literary reasons (06:06).

D. The Fantastic Lifespans: Interpretation Challenges

• Comparisons and Problems: The enormous ages assigned to antediluvians (from Adam to Noah) diminish after the flood, paralleling other ancient king lists (07:52, 13:59).
• Chronological Anomalies: Taken literally, such numbers yield implausible overlap (e.g., Noah alive at Abraham’s birth, Shem outliving Abraham by 35 years) (08:26). Ancient Jews themselves altered numbers (e.g., in the Samaritan and Septuagint texts) to make them less problematic (10:57).
  • Quote:
    "Taking them literally causes these really odd consequences, like Shem outliving Abraham for 35 years." —Jonathan (10:57)
• Flexibility in Interpretation: Some participants propose scientific or genetic reasons for long lifespans, but Craig insists the main issues are literary and hermeneutical, not scientific (16:09, 28:20).

E. Textual Variants and Source Criticism

• Masoretic vs. Septuagint: Debate around which textual tradition preserves the original numbers, with most scholars favoring the Masoretic Text, but participants noting the Septuagint’s alternative dating and archaeological correlations (14:17).

F. Theological and Literary Purposes of Genealogy Patterns

• Teaching History’s Meaning: Symmetrical segments and grand patterns express theological ideas—e.g., history’s order and the interconnectedness of mankind (06:12, 13:24).
• Artificial Patterns as Memory Devices: Groupings (like tens or fourteens) likely functioned as mnemonic tools in oral societies (29:15).
• Comparison to New Testament Lists: E.g., Matthew’s genealogy uses a similar symmetry, which is not literal, but serves literary and theological purposes (23:47).

G. Comparisons with Ancient Near Eastern King Lists

• Fantastical Reigns: Ancient Sumerian king lists claim reigns of tens of thousands of years, clearly non-literal and indicative of a different literary style (07:48, 30:13).
• Relative Modesty: The Genesis ages, while long, are more modest than those in Near Eastern lists, prompting debate over their intended meaning (33:19).

H. Genre Considerations: Myth, History, and Biography

• Genesis 1–11 as Myth: While the Gospels are ancient biographies interested in historical figures and events, Craig argues Genesis 1–11 is written as myth, grounding Israel’s view of the world rather than recounting strict chronological history (19:51–20:52).
  • Quote:
    "The genre of Genesis 1 to 11 is myth. It is an attempt to ground realities in the Pentateuchal author's time that were important for Israeli society in the primordial past." —Bill (20:28)
• Genealogies as Historicizing Elements: Despite mythical framing, genealogies aim to demonstrate order and continuity, but still should not be interpreted “woodenly” (21:04).

---

3. Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• "[Sarna concludes,] the conclusion is unmistakable. We have here a deliberate symmetrical schematization of history, featuring neatly balanced significant segments of time as a way of expressing the fundamental biblical teaching that history is meaningful." —Jonathan quoting Sarna (06:12)
• "If you add up the years, it turns out that Noah is still alive when Abraham is born, and his son Shem actually outlives Abraham by 35 years, which seems crazy." —Jonathan (08:26)
• "With respect to many of the kings in the Mesopotamian king list, we are confident that they actually did exist. Walton concludes, and I quote, 'there would be no precedent for thinking of the biblical genealogies differently from others in the ancient world. By putting Adam in the ancestor lists, the authors of Scripture are treating him as a historical person.'" —Jonathan (09:48)
• "I don't think that there's anything in the text that indicates that the laws of nature changed before and after the Flood and that would allow people to live longer." —Bill (16:09)
• "The difference between the gospels and Genesis 1:11… is that the genre of literature to which the Gospels belong is ancient biography… By contrast... the genre of Genesis 1 to 11 is myth." —Bill (19:51–20:34)
• "So that's just again, one more indication here that we mustn't press these narratives with a kind of wooden literality." —Jonathan (22:32)
• "Groupings is that like in the 14s in the New Testament is memory devices... this would be a way of arranging, so you would remember the main people groups." —Bruce (29:15)
• "In these king lists you do have blank, son of blank, son of blank, son of blank… So there's some analogy there to the biblical genealogies." —Jonathan/Bill (30:18, 30:57)
• "There is no sort of consensus view about how to explain these ages of these antediluvians, that it is completely mysterious… Old Testament scholars remain baffled, basically, at what these long ages could mean." —Bill (36:13–36:43)

---

4. Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction & Wilson’s Claim Revisited: 00:00–01:55
• Table of Nations and Literary Techniques: 01:55–06:06
• Symmetry and Telescoping in Genealogies: 06:06–08:21
• Lifespans & Chronological Anomalies: 08:21–11:39
• Masoretic vs. Septuagint Text/Variants: 11:39–14:50
• Literary, Theological, and Genre Issues: 15:37–22:41
• Symmetries as Memory Devices: 23:47–29:04
• Ancient Near Eastern King Lists: 30:10–33:19
• Conclusion & Scholarly Bafflement: 36:13–end

---

5. Additional Insights and Participant Highlights

• Participant Ben: Raises technical and textual challenges, prefers the Septuagint numbers due to systematic differences. Suggests genealogical gaps accommodate odd chronological overlaps (12:09–13:24).
• Participant Steve: Cites conspiracy theories about the Masoretic text’s origins and supports using the Septuagint’s chronology, connecting it to archaeological data (14:17).
• Taewon: Offers an example from Chinese culture about using poems to track generations; highlights analogy to how genealogies serve non-literal, sociocultural functions (25:07).
• Bruce & Memory Devices: Notes that symmetrical groupings in genealogies function as mnemonic aids, essential in oral cultures (29:15).
• Final Reflections: Dr. Craig summarizes the lack of scholarly consensus, cautioning against “wooden literalism” and affirming the ongoing debate and interpretive complexity (36:13 ff).

---

6. Summary of Tone and Style

The conversation is scholarly but accessible, engaging both biblical scholarship and thoughtful lay perspectives. Dr. Craig’s moderating tone is respectful and clarifies mainstream views while welcoming participant objections and alternative suggestions. The discussion is nuanced, analytic, and open-ended, leaving interpretive debates unresolved but providing listeners with tools and frameworks to engage the genealogies of Genesis critically.

---

For further resources or to listen to additional episodes, visit reasonablefaith.org.

Transcript

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig Today the Creation of Life and Biological Diversity, Part 16 for more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org We've been discussing

[Jonathan]

the role of the genealogies of Genesis 1:11 in ordering the primeval narratives into a primeval history by providing a sort of chronological backbone to these chapters. And in our last session together we examined the claim of Robert Wilson that these genealogies, even if they were not written primarily for historiographic reasons. Wilson claims that they don't really have any intention to be historical records, and we saw reasons to dispute that. The fact that these genealogies merge seamlessly into persons who are indisputably thought to be historical, like Abraham and his successors, suggests that there's no differentiation in principle between Abraham and his successors and the predecessors of Abraham. Still, I think Wilson's work does serve to remind us that ancient genealogies were not the work of disinterested historians, but can serve other ends. Consider, for example, the segmented genealogy that appears in Genesis chapter 10, the so called table of nations. These are listed as though they were the sons of Noah and their descendants.

[Bill]

So, for example, in Genesis 10:1 it

[Jonathan]

states that these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood. And so in verse 2 the sons of Japheth are then listed, and then in verse 6 the sons of Ham are listed, and then down in verse 22 the sons of Shem Shem are listed. Although the table presents these various persons and nations as descended from Noah's sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, nevertheless, the people groups that are listed on the table are not necessarily connected by blood. Rather, they represent eclectic groupings of peoples based upon geographical, linguistic, racial, and cultural similarities. So the Jewish commentator Nahum Sarna, in

[Bill]

his commentary on Genesis 1:11 comments as follows.

[Jonathan]

Sarna says, on the surface, the use of verbs expressing birth and of terms like son, father, firstborn suggest straightforward genealogies of the kind already encountered in previous chapters. In actual fact, many of the personal names listed here are otherwise known to be those of places or peoples. 10 names have plural endings 9 others take the suffix AI. Several others include the definite article, which is not possible with a proper name in Hebrew. He concludes, the terminology is not meant to be taken literally. Some of the peoples that we would classify as Semitic, that is to say as sons of Shem, are listed in the table as sons of Ham. Instead, because the descendants of Ham are Under God's curse, Israel's greatest enemies are listed as Ham's descendants. Moreover, this character of the table is not a modern discovery. The ancient author himself would have been aware of how eclectic his groupings are. For example, he collects Mesopotamian, Ethiopian and Arabian ethnicities together under Cush. He could not have failed to notice that Sheba and Havilah are listed as descendants of both Ham and Shem in

[Bill]

verses 7 and 28 to 29.

[Jonathan]

So Sheba and Havilah are counted as

[Bill]

both descendants of Ham and Shem.

[Jonathan]

All of this suggests that he did not understand the genealogy to be a straightforward historical account. So despite the notices Sons of and begot, this genealogy does not list blood descendants and but rather it lists peoples based on political, linguistic, geographical and other similar factors. And the author of Genesis Knew is a showcase example of Wilson's claim that segmented genealogies serve mainly domestic, political, jurial and religious purposes. Now, with respect to the linear genealogies, telescoping, that is to say, collapsing generations

[Bill]

and fluidity are common features in ancient genealogies.

[Jonathan]

Gaps in Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian king lists are common. Now, when you put together or conjoin the genealogy of adam in chapter 5 of Genesis with the genealogy of Shem in chapter 11, you find created an artificial symmetry of 10 antediluvian ancestors from Adam through Noah, followed by 10 post diluvian ancestors from Shem through Abraham. A similar 10 name genealogy appears in Ruth, chapter 4, verses 18 to 22 Ruth 4, 1822 for King David, as well as in various Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian king lists. So Sarna concludes, the conclusion is unmistakable. We have here a deliberate symmetrical schematization of history, featuring neatly balanced significant segments of time as a way of expressing the fundamental biblical teaching that history is meaningful. Moreover, in the Sumerian king list, the antediluvian kings have fantastically long reigns as long as 43,200 years for an individual

[Bill]

reign, with the cumulative lengths of the reign.

[Jonathan]

Pardon me, with the lengths of the reign then diminishing after the flood, the eight antediluvian kings are said to have ruled for a combined total of 241,000 years. Eight kings ruled for 241,000 years following

[Bill]

the flood 39 additional kings reign for less than 27,000 years.

[Jonathan]

So a tremendous decline in the lengths

[Bill]

of the reigns following the flood.

[Jonathan]

Similarly, in Genesis, the flood interrupts the genealogies and fantastically long lifespans, hundreds of years in length, are ascribed to the antediluvians and then diminished lifespans following the flood. And these abnormally long lifespans lead to difficulties if taken literally. For example, if you add up the years, it turns out that Noah is still alive when Abraham is born, and his son Shem actually outlives Abraham by 35 years, which seems crazy. The author of Genesis would himself have been aware of how fantastic these ancestral lifespans are, which gives reason to think that the genealogies are not intended to be straightforward history. The Old Testament commentator Kenneth Matthews suggests, plausibly, I think, that the genealogies serve the theological purpose of. Of showing the interconnectedness of all mankind and the hope of universal blessing. Nevertheless, as John Walton reminds us, there's no evidence that ancient genealogies included individuals who were not believed to have actually lived. Indeed, with respect to many of the kings in the Mesopotamian king list, we are confident that they actually did exist. Walton concludes, and I quote, consequently, there would be no precedent for thinking of the biblical genealogies differently from others in the ancient world. By putting Adam in the ancestor lists, the authors of Scripture are treating him as a historical person. Any comment or discussion of that point?

[Jonathan (participant)]

Yes, Jonathan, concerning your point about the fantastic ages, while I agree with that, having difficulty seeing how that's not anything more than an argument from personal incredulity, because I know plenty of young Earth creationists who will bite the bullet on that point.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, well, and some things are incredulous.

[Bill]

I think it is unbelievable that I think the ancient author would have thought that people like methuselah lived for 900

[Jonathan]

years and moreover, remember the point that I make that taking them literally causes these really odd consequences, like Shem outliving Abraham for 35 years. And the fact that ancient Jews felt uncomfortable about this is evident in the fact that in the Samaritan and Septuagint texts of the Pentateuch, these numbers are changed so as to make them less awkward, that the ages are reduced. Now, scholars agree that the Masoretic text,

[Bill]

the one that we have our translation based on, is probably the right text.

[Jonathan]

It's original. But nevertheless, these other texts, the Samaritan

[Bill]

and the Septuagint, show how uncomfortable ancient

[Jonathan]

Jews felt about the length of these lifespans. So it's not just incredulity, it's that they also produce these sort of chronological

[Bill]

anomalies that just don't seem right. Yes, Ben, next to you, I actually

[Ben]

did a presentation on that very thing not all that long ago on the Septuagint numbers versus the Masoretic text. I actually think the Septuagint numbers have the better.

[Jonathan]

Really?

[Ben]

Yeah. Have the better historical support, but. And that's because the difference is all off by 100, except for one of them, which is off by 50. And it looks like the one that's off by 50 could have easily been added 100 years to it, but you couldn't have subtracted 100 years from it. Anyhow. There's a whole host of reasons for that. If there are gaps in the genealogies, though, that alleviates the problem of Abraham existing while Noah and Shem. Plus, if you add the Septuagint numbers to it, that also alleviates that problem. However, I do agree that there are gaps in the genealogies. As for the ages, I think there could be some scientific reasons. You know, even. I mean, Moses lives 120, Abraham lives 180. We don't seem to. Or 175. We don't seem to have as much of a problem with that. 900. Well, yeah, yeah, I mean, I know, but it's one of those things. But we just don't know genetically.

[Bill]

Well, it's a cumulative argument here that I'm presenting, and I think this would be one factor, but thank you. Good response, Ben. Anyone else?

[Steve]

My question is pretty simple. Antediluvian and postiluvian. What does that mean?

[Jonathan]

Antediluvians, those are those who live before the flood, before the deluge.

[Steve]

Okay, that's all ahead.

[Bill]

Okay.

[Jonathan]

So antediluvians are those who live before the flood. Post diluvians are those who live after the flood. And as I say, in these Mesopotamian king lists, they have these fantastically long

[Bill]

rains prior to the flood, and then afterwards, diminished rains.

[Jonathan]

And you have this similar pattern in

[Bill]

Genesis with the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs who lived for centuries, and then afterwards, the ages are diminishing.

[Jonathan]

Yes, Steve?

[Steve (participant)]

I just read a book, rebooting the Bible, which agrees with what Ben said, saying that at 100 AD there was a conspiracy to get rid of 1300 years to confront Jesus being the Messiah. And that's what got adopted into the Masoretic test, that the Septuagint is most accurate. And plus, if you use the date of Josephus, the Exodus, it agrees with what the Septuagint dates when you add it at 1600, which agrees with all archaeology of the destruction of Jericho and the surrounding cities.

[Bill]

Well, thank you for that. I would just say that when you

[Jonathan]

read Old Testament commentaries on Genesis, I

[Bill]

think that I've never seen anyone yet disagree with the priority of the Masoretic text, everyone seems to think that I've

[Jonathan]

read, and I've read quite a few, that the Septuagintal text, that's the Greek

[Bill]

text of the Old Testament, that's not the original language, that's a Greek translation, and then the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, everybody seems to think that those numbers have been changed because of these difficulties. But as Ben and you indicate, everything is open for discussion. Question. Way in the back there, Steve.

[Steve (participant)]

Given the differences in how the world is supposed to work before the flood, such as not having rain, things like that, it suggests in the fountains, in the divas, suggest different realities that may. May not preclude a longer lifespan due to a variety of factors. We won't want to get into them. But, you know, I think that given the differences that are described, it's premature to make a judgment about the reality of those type of lifespans.

[Jonathan]

All right. I don't think that there's anything in the text that indicates that the laws

[Bill]

of nature changed before and after the flood and that would allow people to live longer. And here I might appeal to Jonathan Sarfatti, who is himself a young earth creationist who has written a commentary on Genesis 1:11. And Sarfati himself argues against young Earthers who say that somehow the antediluvian conditions

[Jonathan]

were different, that enabled people to live

[Bill]

for centuries, and then after the flood, somehow they changed. And there just doesn't seem to be anything in the text to support that, much less in science. Yes, Andrew.

[Andrew]

Yeah. So just quick methodological question. Talked about the symmetry, the tens. The symmetry of tens. So at what point do you think such symmetries should be seen as artificially kind of added by the author versus those being signs of God, sovereignty, ordination over creation, like he played at that point?

[Bill]

Well, it's going to be a cumulative argument, Andrew. As I said to Ben, it's not

[Jonathan]

just here that you seem to have

[Bill]

this created symmetry of 10 and 10,

[Jonathan]

but you find that, for example, in

[Bill]

the genealogy for King David in Ruth 4, you find these groups of tens in the king lists in ancient Mesopotamia.

[Jonathan]

And so it looks like an artificial

[Bill]

construction rather than saying that there actually were literally 10 generations before and after the flood. Yes, Joe.

[Joe]

So with the pre flood ages and then post flood ages, they seem to kind of decrease, as, you know, the ages go after the flood. I was curious what function that might serve as well as tying that in with the flood. Did the author of Genesis and then the original people hearing this, would they have taken the Flood then to be strictly literally, or did they see it as something different?

[Bill]

Well, that's sort of the million dollar question at this point, and we'll have to talk about that more later on. What I'm suggesting is that there are indications, such as I've mentioned already, that

[Jonathan]

even though the genealogies order these narratives

[Bill]

chronologically, they shouldn't be read with strict historical precision, and that therefore it would be a mistake to read them in a kind of literal way. They could represent other things. Now, what they represent, that's a difficult question.

[Jonathan]

What is the theological significance of long

[Bill]

ages prior to the Flood and shortened ones afterwards? I'm not in a position to answer that question, but that certainly is germane.

[Jonathan]

Yes, George?

[George]

Bill, the questions you've raised here, is it an example of a general tendency that we have when assessing ancient writings to impose modern standards of accuracy on those writings? For example, we expect when you read a history, everything will be chronological, and in the Gospels, that doesn't seem to always be the case. And also direct quotation, you know, ancient people had no means of recording speeches, and yet we insert quotation marks as if these are verbatim quotes. Do you have any comment on that?

[Jonathan]

George is absolutely correct.

[Bill]

The difference between the gospels and Genesis 1:11 that I believe I mentioned before in response to Cash, is that the

[Jonathan]

genre of literature to which the Gospels

[Bill]

belong is ancient biography.

[Jonathan]

And while you're correct that in ancient

[Bill]

biography events could be told in different

[Jonathan]

order, nevertheless these do show a historical interest. They're about a historical person and telling anecdotes to illustrate the character of the

[Bill]

principal figure in the biography.

[Jonathan]

By contrast, I've argued at some length

[Bill]

now that the genre of Genesis 1 to 11 is myth.

[Jonathan]

It is an attempt to ground realities

[Bill]

in the Pentateuchal author's time that were

[Jonathan]

important for Israeli society in the primordial past. And therefore, you cannot just assume that these are to be read historically in

[Bill]

the way that you can with the Gospels, which are a genre of ancient biography.

[Jonathan]

And the most historical element in Genesis

[Bill]

1:11, that I think does show it,

[Jonathan]

and I've defended this against Wilson, it does show historical interest, is the genealogies. But as I've just argued, even the genealogies mustn't be interpreted in a kind of wooden, literalistic way.

[Bill]

I think the table of nations alone in Genesis 10 precludes that.

[Jonathan]

As for quotation, that's also. You're also correct about that. In fact, in Genesis 2, when we have the story of the creation of Eve And God brings Eve to Adam

[Bill]

and presents her to him.

[Jonathan]

Adam says, she shall be called woman, isha in the Hebrew, for she was

[Bill]

taken out of man, ish in Hebrew.

[Jonathan]

Now, what's interesting about that is, according to Hebraists that I've spoken to, that kind of vocabulary didn't exist in Hebrew

[Bill]

until about the monarchy around 1000 BC,

[Jonathan]

and therefore Adam or even an earlier author couldn't have used this kind of vocabulary.

[Bill]

This pun on ish and isha.

[Jonathan]

This is an anachronism. It is a retelling of the story using the language and the vocabulary of

[Bill]

more modern Hebrew that existed around the time of the monarchy.

[Jonathan]

So that's just again, one more indication here that we mustn't press these narratives

[Bill]

with a kind of wooden literality.

[Jonathan]

All right, someone else.

[Bill]

Yes, Kevin?

[Kevin]

So a couple things about the ages. It seems to me that the decline of purity of the gene pool, coupled with the introduction of meat into the human diet may have had something to do with the reduction of ages. But I also want to ask you, Genesis 6:3, what do you think about that verse where it says, God says, my spirit will not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, but his day shall be 120 years.

[Jonathan]

Right.

[Kevin]

This, does that have anything to do with the decline?

[Jonathan]

Well, that is presented as the reason

[Bill]

for the diminished lifespans of the post Diluvians is that God has said, I'm not going to put up with these people in the same way. And now their lifespans are going to be diminished to no more than 120 years. So that would be the rationale. Maybe that would help to answer Joe's question about what's the theological point that's being made here by the diminished lifespans. Maybe it underlines the sinfulness of mankind and how their lives need to be shortened lest they utterly destroy the world and civilization.

[Steve]

Yes, this is not my point. This is my girlfriend's point, but she just quoting my sources, but she pointed out that, you know, Matthew is indisputably historical, but it provides a genealogy where up to the deportation to Babylon, there are 14 generations, after that, up to Jesus, there are 14 generations. So you see, there's that same type, a similar type of symmetry there. But it's hard to say that there would literally be 14 generations.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, I didn't appeal to that example because it's New Testament, it's centuries after Genesis. But you're exactly right. You have these three groups, as I recall, of 14 generations each clearly I think, constructed by Matthew to be symmetrical Nice and neat. It's an artificial symmetry. And as I say In Ruth, in Ruth 4, you have a genealogy of

[Bill]

David like this, which is constructed of 10 nice generations.

[Jonathan]

And so this, I think, makes it

[Bill]

plausible that that's also what's going on in the genealogies of the antediluvian and post diluvian ancestors. Let's see. Okay, Taewon. And then Brad.

[Taewon]

Dr. Craig, I want to bring you to awareness of how people keep up with their genealogy. Tracking. My father actually passed down to my older brother, the firstborn, a poem of 20 generations and saying that that is to pass on. The firstborn, always pass on. And so you track the 20 generations, and that's how everything is kind of intact. And that way you not only have the last name, but this poem give you the given middle name so that later on you can kind of track across the geography someone share that last name and middle name. You can ask about their ancestry and be able to track. So I thought that maybe.

[Jonathan]

Yes. Now this is in Chinese society. That's very interesting.

[Bill]

Taewon, let me ask you one question.

[Jonathan]

When an additional person is born, do they drop somebody off the beginning of the genealogy? No, I'm serious. Did they drop somebody off at the beginning to keep it at 20, or do they add.

[Bill]

So it becomes 21, 22, 23.

[Taewon]

Now the firstborn, after the 20 generation has to come up with a poem for another 20 generation. So it passed down like that.

[Bill]

Okay, very interesting.

[Jonathan]

Okay, thank you.

[Bill]

That's interesting.

[Jonathan]

As Wilson's book illustrated, this anthropological data,

[Bill]

such as Tiwana sharing, is very often

[Jonathan]

studied by Old Testament scholars today as

[Bill]

an analogy to how genealogies function in tribal societies. And although this is of uncertain application to ancient Israel, nevertheless it's interesting and suggestive.

[Brad]

Okay, Brad, I. I have seen headlines, but not studied and read that there's no reason why we couldn't live forever. The junk DNA at the back and the copying errors and everything else. And so I keep hearing from that, our better understanding of how DNA is used for copying and that sort of thing. You mentioned that there's no indication in the Bible that there was a change that caused people to live longer, earlier than later. There is an indication. It's called the ages of the patriarchs. There's lot that is the evidence that said something happened.

[Jonathan]

Well, no, I don't think that's fair, Brad.

[Bill]

I mean, because we're looking for an explanation of the ages of the patriarchs, some changes, and there is something in

[Jonathan]

the text that would say that somehow, because of a flood, that the laws

[Bill]

of nature changed, enabling DNA to operate differently or people to live longer.

[Jonathan]

And I want to just be very clear here. The objection or concern that I'm raising is not scientific.

[Bill]

I've not said anything about DNA or science.

[Jonathan]

This is purely hermeneutical at this point. Were just studying the text and asking,

[Bill]

are these genealogies meant to be taken

[Jonathan]

literally or do they serve other purposes as Wilson suggests? And I want to say they do have a historical side to them. They show a historical interest by the

[Bill]

author, but that we mustn't press them too hard for literal truth.

[Brad]

All right. It does seem that there is a lot. The ages, the patterns of the ages. Enough that I wouldn't just say, ah, that can't be. Okay, you know, I would go ahead.

[Bill]

Fair enough to say it's true.

[Bruce]

All right, Bruce, One of these things to consider in these groupings is that like in the 14s in the New Testament is memory devices.

[Bill]

Yes.

[Bruce]

And that this would be a way of arranging. So you would. Would remember the main people groups.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, in an oral society with

[Bill]

oral tradition, you probably don't want to

[Jonathan]

have genealogies that are hundreds of names in length, for example, but you would

[Bill]

have simple symmetrical genealogies that could be easily transmitted, like the groups of 20 that Taewon mentioned.

[Bruce]

The other thing that the other consideration is the reigns of the kings. A number of these can be co regencies rather than consecutive. And so fair enough, that would shorten these spans.

[George]

Yeah.

[Jonathan]

Though when you get to reigns of

[Bill]

26,000, 30,000 years, something very peculiar is going on there.

[Bruce]

I didn't get that. Where are these? Where do these come from?

[Jonathan]

This is the Sumerian king list, the

[Bill]

lists of the kings of ancient Sumer,

[Jonathan]

which is the society prior to Assyria and Babylon in Mesopotamia. And then you also have king lists from Assyria that Pastor Wright spoke about today in his sermon, and then from

[Bill]

Babylon about which he also spoke.

[Jonathan]

So we have these ancient king lists that seem to resemble a little bit the biblical genealogies.

[Bill]

The biblical genealogies are unique in ancient literature.

[Jonathan]

But in these king lists you do have blank, son of blank, son of blank, son of blank, and they list their successive reigns.

[Bill]

So there's some analogy there to the biblical genealogies.

[Jonathan]

Okay, someone else who hasn't asked a question yet.

[Unnamed participant]

I guess I'll just add a comment about the feasibility really quickly about the Old ages. I was going to say something along the same thing that Kevin and Brad said about the degeneration of mankind over time, the genetic mistakes, for instance, obviously, when God created mankind, he created them perfect without any genetic mistakes. By the time you get to the law of Moses, a law has to be established that you can't marry a sibling because you're going to have some mistakes because it's similar genetic mistakes. So I think that gives some feasibility to the longer lifespans early on. And then under the young Earth perspective, we're at least consistent between animals and humans.

[Jonathan]

Right.

[Unnamed participant]

Because reptiles continue to grow as long as they live. And so reptiles that live a long time would be dinosaurs. So humans live hundreds of years, reptiles live hundreds of years. That's where we get dinosaurs from, is reptiles that live a long time since they continue to grow until they die. And then I think you kind of look at Methuselah, who has a prophet as a dad. Enoch names Methuselah, which means in Hebrew, when he dies, it will come. If he actually did live 969 years, then he dies the year of the flood, which would make that prophecy true. So I guess I just wanted to add a couple of comments about the feasibility of these lost hands.

[Bill]

Okay, fair enough. Welcome. I welcome the pushback. I know this is controversial. Yes.

[Unnamed participant]

So just thinking and sort of compare and contrasting the Mesopotamian king lists with the genealogies in scripture. I mean, obviously, the Mesopotamian king lists are ridiculous. I mean, we know from archaeology that Homo sapiens has been around for much less of a time than those kings would have ruled. But to me, I was just thinking that seems to add to an argument for the historicity of the Genesis list, because even though they're large, they're far more reasonable in a way that, you know, people at that time wouldn't have known that Homo sapiens had only been around for 100,000 years. But they still have dates that are considerably shortened. And to me, I would think that does make an argument for their historical historicity. They're not a clear copy of those Mesopotamian lists.

[Jonathan]

This is a point that is made

[Bill]

by the Jewish commentator Umberto Cassuto in his commentary on Genesis 1:11.

[Jonathan]

He says, Compared to these king lists, with these fantastic reigns thousands and thousands of years long, the ages of the antediluvians look modest by comparison. Now, that doesn't mean he takes them literally, but he does say that they

[Bill]

are much more modest, less fantastic than the reigns of these Mesopotamian kings. And so that certainly is a fair point, whether or not, though, these are

[Jonathan]

to be taken literally.

[Bill]

Well, I've already said reasons for my doubts about that.

[Ben]

Yes, Ben, again, the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians had a tendency to exaggerate. So if they had real numbers, then they were trying to outdo each other in some cases.

[Jonathan]

So the question would be, Ben, what about ancient Israelites?

[Bill]

Did they have a tendency to exaggerate numbers for some reason? Is there some theological point, you know,

[Jonathan]

that's being made here?

[Ben]

If there's a theological point, I haven't been able to find it, and I just think it brings up the inerrancy issue. If the numbers. If the numbers are not literal. And I think you can take the numbers in Genesis literal and have gaps in the genealogies so that you don't have a wooden, strict timeline.

[Jonathan]

You see, in the genealogies. What you've got, as you know, Ben, is that it gives the age of the father at the time that he gave birth to the son. You know, so when he was 375 years old, he gave birth to a son, and then he lived another 600

[Bill]

and some years after that.

[Ben]

Well, in some cases, like in Abraham, it says that Terah was. I think he was 135 when Abraham was born. But when you do the math in some of the other places, we see that he was really not that age when he was born. So the numbers, there are actual textual reasons to think that the numbers are not exactly. You don't mean.

[Jonathan]

You don't think the text is corrupted?

[Ben]

I don't think the text is corrupted. I just think if there are gaps there, if it's telescope, like you said, the numbers could be literal, but we still can't make an exact timeline out of it.

[Taewon]

All right.

[Jonathan]

Well, I mean, that is sort of

[Bill]

the point I'm making, isn't it, Ben, that we mustn't interpret these with a sort of wooden literalness.

[Jonathan]

There's something else, an excellent article.

[Ben]

And if you want to write these names down, Jeremy Sexton and Henry Smith from the Associates of Biblical Research website has got an excellent article on those two.

[Jonathan]

All right, I'll read the reference afterwards.

[Bill]

The reading that I've done on this

[Jonathan]

suggests that there is no sort of

[Bill]

consensus view about how to explain these ages of these antediluvians, that it is completely mysterious. They tried to find numerology in them, symbols, tried to think of multiple generations

[Jonathan]

or lines of descent, and nothing seems to work.

[Bill]

Old Testament scholars remain baffled, basically, at what these long ages could mean. And so I think it's at least an open question. Maybe they're not meant to be taken literally, but we are at the end of our time. So next week we will continue. And I appreciate the good discussion today. Let's close with a word of prayer. Father, thank you for the stimulus of brothers and sisters in RA wrestling with these difficult questions. And we pray that whatever view that we might take, that we would be

[Jonathan]

faithful servants to execute your will and to live lives that are glorifying and

[Bill]

pleasing to you through Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

The copyright for the preceding material is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more go to reasonablefaith.org.