The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11

The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11
Gerhard F. Hasel The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 by Gerhard F. Hasel

Outline Introduction Data Relating to the Line of Descent
Internal Literary Data: the Formula of Descent Archaeological-Historical Data Biblical-Genealogical Data Interpretations of Chronological Information in Genesis 5 and 11 Non-historical Interpretations Great Year System Secret System Systems of Figures Discontinuous System Historical Interpretations Successive Method of Reckoning Overlapping Method of Reckoning Conclusion Introduction

The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are unique within and outside of Scripture.
They are called chronogenealogies because of the mixture of both chronological and genealogical data. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are unique within and outside of Scripture. / They are called chronogenealogies because of the mixture of both chronological and genealogical data

It is no longer in vogue to view the chronological information in the Bible as “mere window dressing.” In recent decades the accuracy of the chronological information in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, has been verified repeatedly. It is no longer in vogue to view the chronological information in the Bible as “mere window dressing.” / In recent decades the accuracy of the chronological information in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, has been verified repeatedly.

Data Relating to the Line of Descent
Introduction Data Relating to the Line of Descent Internal Literary Data: the Formula of Descent Archaeological-Historical Data Biblical-Genealogical Data Interpretations of Chronological Information in Genesis 5 and 11 Non-historical Interpretations Great Year System Secret System Systems of Figures Discontinuous System Historical Interpretations Successive Method of Reckoning Overlapping Method of Reckoning Conclusion Internal Literary Data

The Formula of Descent When PN1 had lived x years, he fathered PN2. And PN1 lived after he fathered PN2 y years, and he fathered other sons and daughters. And all the days of PN1 were z years. This interlocking nature of the information provided is forceful internal evidence that the material in Genesis 5 and 11 presents a continuous line of descent. The formula of descent goes like this: When patriarch number 1 had lived x years, he fathered patriarch number 2. And patriarch number 1 lived after he fathered patriarch number 2 y years, and he fathered other sons and daughters. And all the days of patriarch number 1 were z years. / This interlocking nature of the information provided is forceful internal evidence that the material in Genesis 5 and 11 presents a continuous line of descent.

Introduction Data Relating to the Line of Descent Internal Literary Data: the Formula of Descent Archaeological-Historical Data Biblical-Genealogical Data Interpretations of Chronological Information in Genesis 5 and 11 Non-historical Interpretations Great Year System Secret System Systems of Figures Discontinuous System Historical Interpretations Successive Method of Reckoning Overlapping Method of Reckoning Conclusion Archaeological Historical Data

Divergent Figures (AM—from creation)
Hebrew MT LXX (Alex.) (Vat.) Sam. Pent. Josephus Adam to Noah 1656 2262 2242 1307 2256 Shem to Abraham 292 1072 1172 942 983 Adam to Abraham 1948 3334 3414 2249 3239 Archaeological Historical Data

In order to determine a BC date for the flood, we must know the date of Abraham’s birth.
1 Kings 6:1 says that Solomon’s temple was begun 480 years after the Exodus. 970BC (temple begun) +480 1450 BC (Exodus) To translate AM dates [which means from creation] into BC dates [which means before the time of Jesus], we must be able to calculate the date of Abraham’s birth. / 1 Kings 6:1 says that Solomon’s temple was begun 480 years after the Exodus.

4,000 BC 3,000 BC 2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 970 BC Temple Begun 1 Kings 6:1 says Solomon’s temple was begun 480 years after the Exodus. = 1450 BC We know from history that Solomon’s temple was begun around BC.

4,000 BC 3,000 BC 2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 1450 BC Exodus 970 BC Temple Begun 1 Kings 6:1 says Solomon’s temple was begun 480 years after the Exodus. = 1450 BC 480 years before that would put the Exodus at 1450 BC

Exodus 12:40 Hebrew (MT) Greek (LXX)
The sons of Israel lived in Egypt 430 years. The sojournings of the sons of Israel in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan was 430 years 215 in Egypt 215 in Canaan We can use Exodus 12:40 to calculate the year the Israelites went down to Egypt. The problem here is that different manuscripts say different things. / The Hebrew manuscript says “The sons of Israel lived in Egypt 430 years.” / But the Greek Septuagint says, “The sojournings of the sons of Israel in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan was 430 years. / It is usually calculated that half the 430 was in Egypt and half was in Canaan.

1450 BC + 430 years in Egypt 1880 BC Descent to Egypt 4,000 BC 3,000
2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 1880 BC To Egypt 1450 BC Exodus 970 BC Temple Begun 1450 BC + 430 years in Egypt 1880 BC Descent to Egypt Adding the 430 years from the Hebrew text to the date of the Exodus, we arrive at 1880 BC as the date when Jacob and his family went down to Egypt.

1450 BC + 215 years in Egypt 1665 BC Descent to Egypt 4,000 BC 3,000
2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 1665 BC To Egypt 1450 BC Exodus 970 BC Temple Begun 1450 BC years in Egypt 1665 BC Descent to Egypt Using the Septuagint figure of only 215 years, the Israelites arrived in Egypt later—in 1665 BC instead.

1880 BC (Israelites entered Egypt)
4,000 BC 3,000 BC 2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 2170 BC Abram Born 1880 BC To Egypt 1450 BC Exodus 970 BC Temple Begun 1880 BC (Israelites entered Egypt) (Jacob’s age when he entered Egypt) (Isaac’s age when Jacob was born) (Abram’s age when Isaac was born) 2170 BC (Abraham’s birth) Adding to the 1880 BC date from the Hebrew manuscript

4,000 BC 3,000 BC 2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 2170 BC Abram Born 1880 BC To Egypt 1450 BC Exodus 970 BC Temple Begun 1880 BC (Israelites entered Egypt) (Jacob’s age when he entered Egypt) (Isaac’s age when Jacob was born) (Abram’s age when Isaac was born) 2170 BC (Abraham’s birth) Jacob’s age when he entered Egypt

4,000 BC 3,000 BC 2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 2170 BC Abram Born 1880 BC To Egypt 1450 BC Exodus 970 BC Temple Begun 1880 BC (Israelites entered Egypt) (Jacob’s age when he entered Egypt) (Isaac’s age when Jacob was born) (Abram’s age when Isaac was born) 2170 BC (Abraham’s birth) Isaac’s age when Jacob was born

4,000 BC 3,000 BC 2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 2170 BC Abram Born 1880 BC To Egypt 1450 BC Exodus 970 BC Temple Begun 1880 BC (Israelites entered Egypt) (Jacob’s age when he entered Egypt) (Isaac’s age when Jacob was born) (Abram’s age when Isaac was born) 2170 BC (Abraham’s birth) We get 2170 BC as the date of Abraham’s birth

4,000 BC 3,000 BC 2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 1955 Abram’s birth 1665 BC To Egypt 1450 BC Exodus 970 BC Temple Begun 1665 BC (Israelites entered Egypt) (Jacob’s age when he entered Egypt) (Isaac’s age when Jacob was born) (Abram’s age when Isaac was born) 1955 BC (Abraham’s birth) Adding those same figures to the 1665 BC date from the Septuagint manuscript

4,000 BC 3,000 BC 2,000 BC 1,000 BC BC/AD 1955 Abram’s birth 1665 BC To Egypt 1450 BC Exodus 970 BC Temple Begun 1665 BC (Israelites entered Egypt) (Jacob’s age when he entered Egypt) (Isaac’s age when Jacob was born) (Abram’s age when Isaac was born) 1955 BC (Abraham’s birth) We arrive at 1955 BC as the date of Abraham’s birth

Date of the Flood (BC) Hebrew MT LXX (Alex.) (Vat.) Sam. Pent. Flood
2462 3242 3342 3112 Creation of Adam 4118 5504 584 4419 We arrive at 1955 BC as the date of Abraham’s birth

Date of the Flood (BC) Heb. MT +60 LXX (Alex.) (Vat.) Sam. Pent. Flood 2462 2522 3242 3302 3342 3402 3112 3172 Creation of Adam 4118 4178 5504 5564 584 5644 4419 4479 If Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years old, as may be indicated in Genesis 11:32; 12:4; Acts 7:4 (because Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran after Terah had died at the age of 205), then 60 years needs to be added to the BC years of the flood. If Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years old (instead of 70), then 60 years needs to be added to the years before the flood.

Without doubt, the figure and dates obtained from the Septuagint texts are the most attractive from the viewpoint of currently known historical data from Egypt and Mesopotamia. The historical data from Egypt and Mesopotamia are relative. No absoluteness must be assigned to them. Caution is in order so that biblical materials are not prematurely judged inaccurate or invalid on grounds which scholars are careful enough to regard as relative. Without doubt, the figure and dates obtained from the Septuagint texts are the most attractive from the viewpoint of currently known historical data from Egypt and Mesopotamia. / But the historical data from Egypt and Mesopotamia are relative. No absoluteness must be assigned to them. / Caution is in order so that biblical materials are not prematurely judged inaccurate or invalid on grounds which scholars are careful enough to regard as relative.

A truly scientific approach to early world chronologies will not accord to “relative chronology” an absolute status which may serve as a sound basis for decisions concerning personal faith and confidence in the fidelity of the Bible. A truly scientific approach to early world chronologies will not accord to “relative chronology” an absolute status which may serve as a sound basis for decisions concerning personal faith and confidence in the fidelity of the Bible.

Introduction Data Relating to the Line of Descent Internal Literary Data: the Formula of Descent Archaeological-Historical Data Biblical-Genealogical Data Interpretations of Chronological Information in Genesis 5 and 11 Non-historical Interpretations Great Year System Secret System Systems of Figures Discontinuous System Historical Interpretations Successive Method of Reckoning Overlapping Method of Reckoning Conclusion Continuing with the Archaeological-historical data section

Sumerian King List Closest parallel to Genesis 5 and 11
Several scholars have claimed that Genesis 5 and 11 are dependent on the Sumerian King List and thus cannot be regarded as a reliable index of time. The Sumerian King List is the closest parallel to Genesis 5 and 11. / Several scholars have claimed that Genesis 5 and 11 are dependent on the Sumerian King List and thus cannot be regarded as a reliable index of time.

Results of Investigation
Genesis 5 and 11 Sumerian King List Semitic names Years of life Line of descent 10 antediluvians 9 postdiluvians Emphasizes descent Non-Semitic names Years of reign Succession of kings 7-10 antediluvians 39 postdiluvians Emphasizes kingship in only one city at a time The results of an investigation comparing the two lists shows / that Genesis contains Semitic names / while the Sumerian King List contains non-Semitic names./ The first list gives years of life,/ while the second gives years of reign. / Genesis shows the line of descent, / which is different from the succession of kings. / 10 antediluvians appear on one list / with anywhere from 7-10 on the other. The post-diluvian numbers are even more dramatic /—9 on one list / and 39 on the other. / While Genesis emphasizes descent, / the Sumerian King List emphasizes kingship in only one city at a time.

Results of Investigation
Genesis 5 and 11 Sumerian King List 7. Chronogenealogies 8. Structures not identical 9. Focuses on chronological information 7. City dynasties/rulers 8. Structures not identical 9. Contains only occasional chronological information The information in the first is well described by the word chronogenealogies, / but the Sumerian King List focuses on city dynasties and rulers. /The structures within the lists are not identical. / And only one focuses on chronological information.

Conclusion The Sumerian King List is not a source directly or indirectly for Genesis 5 and 11. Genesis 5 and 11:10-26 are without a parallel in the ancient world. It is most precarious and methodologically unsound to interpret the biblical chronogenealogies on the basis of ancient Near Eastern materials. The proper function and meaning can be determined in their own contextual settings in Genesis 1-11 and the Bible as a whole. The author concludes that the Sumerian King List is not a source directly or indirectly for Genesis 5 and 11. / These chapters are without a parallel in the ancient world. / It is most precarious and methodologically unsound to interpret the biblical chronogenealogies on the basis of ancient near eastern materials. The proper function and meaning can be determined in their own contextual settings in Genesis 1-11 and the Bible as a whole.

Introduction Data Relating to the Line of Descent Internal Literary Data: the Formula of Descent Archaeological-Historical Data Biblical-Genealogical Data Interpretations of Chronological Information in Genesis 5 and 11 Non-historical Interpretations Great Year System Secret System Systems of Figures Discontinuous System Historical Interpretations Successive Method of Reckoning Overlapping Method of Reckoning Conclusion Biblical-genealogical data

Discontinuous Genealogies
Genealogy of Jesus Matthew 1:1-17 OT Genealogies 2 Kings 8:25; 11:2;14:1, 21 Joram begat Uzziah Joram Ahaziah Joash Amazziah Uzziah It is true that some biblical genealogies are discontinuous. / For example, in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1, it says / that Joram begat Uzziah. / But OT references indicate / that Joram actually began Ahaziah, who begat Joash, who begat Amazziah, who begat Uzziah.

It has been suggested that since other biblical genealogies contain discontinuities, the chronogenealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 do as well. It has been suggested that since other biblical genealogies contain discontinuities, the chronogenealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 do as well

It is suggested that the structure of Genesis 5 and 11 with 10 antediluvian and 10 post diluvian patriarchs is an intentional arrangement Similar to Matthew 1:1-17 which has three sets of 14 ancestors It is suggested that the structure of Genesis 5 and 11 with 10 antediluvian and 10 post diluvian patriarchs is an intentional arrangement--/ Similar to Matthew 1:1-17 which has three sets of 14 ancestors

10 and 10? Shem Arpachshad Shelah Eber Peleg Reu Serug Nahor
Genesis 5 Antediluvian Genesis 11 Post-diluvian Adam Seth Enosh Kenan Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah (had 3 sons) Shem Arpachshad Shelah Eber Peleg Reu Serug Nahor Terah (had 3 sons) Just by counting the names before and after the flood, we can quickly see that one has 10 and the other has only 9.

10 and 10? Adam Seth Enosh Kenan Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah
Genesis 5 Antediluvian Genesis 11 Post-diluvian Adam Seth Enosh Kenan Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah (had 3 sons) Shem Shem Arpachshad Shelah Eber Peleg Reu Serug Nahor Terah (had 3 sons) Abram Some argue that Abram (one of Terah’s three sons) should be counted as the 10th generation after the flood. But to be consistent, then Shem (one of Noah’s three sons) should be counted on the other side.

The figures 10/9 and 11/10 respectively can hardly qualify as an intentional arrangement or a symmetry. The alleged symmetry of 10 generations before the flood and 10 generations after the flood is non-existent in the Hebrew text. The figures 10/9 and 11/10 respectively can hardly qualify as an intentional arrangement or a symmetry. / The alleged symmetry of 10 generations before the flood and 10 generations after the flood is non-existent in the Hebrew text.

The “second” Cainan (Kenan)
The addition of a second Cainan, makes 10 generations in the Greek translation. That this is a secondary alteration in the LXX is almost certain: Not in 1 Ch 1:18, 24 of the LXX Kenan already occurs in the former genealogy The figures assigned to him simply duplicate Shelah who follows him Possibly an attempt to schematize The Greek Septuagint contains the addition of a second Cainan, making 10 generations in that translation. / That this is a secondary alteration is almost certain: / He is not found in the genealogy in 1 Chronicles / Kenan already occurs in the former genealogy / The figures assigned to him simply duplicate Shelah who follows him. / Some wonder if the addition of Cainan was a purposeful attempt to schematize

Comparison Genesis 5 and 11 Matthew 1:1-17 No 10-10 pattern
Formula: when PN1 had lived x years, he fathered PNx. And PN1 lived y more years…. All the days of PN1 were z years. Chronogenealogies pattern PN1 begat PN2 No chronological information Comparing the genealogies in Genesis with Matthew 1, / we find that no pattern exists in Genesis / that might correspond with the in Matthew. / The formula in Genesis is much more complex / than the simple PN1 begat PN2 in Matthew. / Genesis contains chronological information, / which is not found in Matthew.

The arguments against the apparent continuous line of descent in these chapters are far from compelling. The fact that some biblical genealogies have a discontinuous line of descent and in turn lack any interlocking chronological information of spans of life can hardly function as a key to determine that Genesis 5 and 11 are also discontinuous. The arguments against the apparent continuous line of descent in these chapters are far from compelling. / The fact that some biblical genealogies have a discontinuous line of descent and in turn lack any interlocking chronological information of spans of life can hardly function as a key to determine that Genesis 5 and 11 are also discontinuous.

When there is tension between secular historical time calculations and the computation of the chronological information in Genesis 5 and 11, the issue boils down to which source of data has validity and force over the other. Here the question of the authority of the biblical materials when in conflict with historical reconstruction and/or scientific interpretations appears in full force. When there is tension between secular historical time calculations and the computation of the chronological information in Genesis 5 and 11, the issue boils down to which source of data has validity and force over the other. / Here the question of the authority of the biblical materials when in conflict with historical reconstruction and/or scientific interpretations appears in full force.

Scholarly tradition argues that wherever and whenever the conclusions of historians, scientists, sociologists, etc., are in disagreement with the Bible, the Bible will have to be reinterpreted to be brought into harmony with these conclusions Another scholarly position maintains that where the Bible impinges on subjects such as history, geography, ethnology, botany, astronomy, etc., it is trustworthy. For these scholars, subordinating the Bible to modern scientific interpretations is highly problematic and reverses the structure of authority. Scholarly tradition argues that wherever and whenever the conclusions of historians, scientists, sociologists, etc., are in disagreement with the Bible, the Bible will have to be reinterpreted to be brought into harmony with these conclusions. / Another scholarly position maintains that where the Bible impinges on subjects such as history, geography, ethnology, botany, astronomy, etc., it is trustworthy. / For these scholars, subordinating the Bible to modern scientific interpretations is highly problematic and reverses the structure of authority.

Introduction Data Relating to the Line of Descent Internal Literary Data: the Formula of Descent Archaeological-Historical Data Biblical-Genealogical Data Interpretations of Chronological Information in Genesis 5 and 11 Non-historical Interpretations Great Year System Secret System Systems of Figures Discontinuous System Historical Interpretations Successive Method of Reckoning Overlapping Method of Reckoning Conclusion Let’s look at some non-literal interpretations of the numerical information

Non-historical interpretations
The figures have meaning but lack historical-chronological significance. The “Great Year” System The “Secret System” Systems of Figures The Discontinuous System The “Great Year” of 4,000 years begins with Adam and ends with the rededication of the temple by the Maccabees in 164 B.C. (Very problematic because of computational inaccuracies) The “Great Year” is made up of 4,000 years. It begins with Adam and ends with the rededication of the temple by the Maccabees. This theory is very problematic because of numerous computational inaccuracies.

The figures have meaning but lack historical-chronological significance. The “Great Year” System The “Secret System” Systems of Figures The Discontinuous System Allegedly, Hebrew scribes deliberately hid all chronological information from the OT in a “Secret System.” (Lack of evidence, and the Bible demonstrates itself to be historical time and again.) Allegedly, Hebrew scribes deliberately hid all chronological information from the OT in a “secret System.” (There is a lack of evidence for this theory, and time and again the Bible demonstrates itself to be historically accurate.)

The figures have meaning but lack historical-chronological significance. The “Great Year” System The “Secret System” Systems of Figures The Discontinuous System Instead of dismissing the figures, some scholars have suggested that the figures have meaning, the key of which has to be recovered. (Few scholars have found this convincing.) Instead of dismissing the figures completely, some scholars have suggested that the figures have meaning, the key of which has to be recovered. (Few scholars have found this convincing.)

The figures have meaning but lack historical-chronological significance. The “Great Year” System The “Secret System” Systems of Figures The Discontinuous System The Discontinuous System claims that the list is incomplete and only contains excerpts from a longer list. (This is built on historical and scientific premises not present in Scripture.) The Discontinuous System claims that the list is incomplete and only contains excerpts from a longer list. (This is built on historical and scientific premises not present in Scripture itself.)

Introduction Data Relating to the Line of Descent Internal Literary Data: the Formula of Descent Archaeological-Historical Data Biblical-Genealogical Data Interpretations of Chronological Information in Genesis 5 and 11 Non-historical Interpretations Great Year System Secret System Systems of Figures Discontinuous System Historical Interpretations Successive Method of Reckoning Overlapping Method of Reckoning Conclusion Among scholars who accept the numbers as historical, there are two basic interpretations.

Historical Interpretations
Successive Method of Reckoning: follows a suggestion that ancient Near Eastern peoples “dated long period of lifetimes, not generations.” While Adam begat an ancestor of Seth when he was 130, Seth actually arose as Scripture’s next prominent figure only after Adam’s full life of 930 years. A major difficulty of this method comes from the Hebrew language. The word for “fathered” is used in the sense of a direct physical offspring. The Successive Method of Reckoning suggests that although Adam begat an ancestor of Seth when he was 130, Seth actually arose as Scripture’s next prominent figure only after Adam’s full life of 930 years. / A major difficulty of this method comes from the Hebrew language. The word for “Fathered” is used in the sense of a direct physical offspring.

Historical Interpretations
Overlapping Method of Reckoning: Calculates time by adding up the number of years each patriarch lived before the birth of his first son. No gaps, no missing generations Archbishop James Ussher used this method to calculate the birth of Jesus in 4 BC and the date of creation at 4004 BC. Many Christians still believe that reckoning by the overlapping method is the one most consistent with the biblical text. The overlapping method of reckoning simply calculates time by adding up the number of years each patriarch lived before the birth of his first son. / There are no gaps, and no missing generations. / Archbishop James Ussher used this method to calculate the birth of Jesus in 4 BC and the date of creation at 4004 BC. / Although flaws in Ussher’s calculations have been discovered, many Christians still believe that this way of reckoning is the one most consistent with the biblical text.

If so, the Bible has to yield when there is conflict.
Dates calculated using this method conflict head-on with standard interpretations of time needed for prehistoric and historical reconstructions. In Dr. Hasel’s opinion, the basic issue is whether modern reconstructions of ancient history and prehistory are an authoritative norm for the interpretation or reinterpretation of the Bible. If so, the Bible has to yield when there is conflict. Dates calculated using this method conflict head-on with standard interpretations of time needed for prehistoric and historical reconstructions. / In Dr. Hasel’s opinion, the basic issue is whether modern reconstructions of ancient history and prehistory are an authoritative norm for the interpretation or reinterpretation of the Bible. / If so, the Bible has to yield when there is conflict.

If not…other disciplines yield
Ultimate authority for knowledge and faith is provided in the superior revelation of God in the Bible, and whenever biblical information impinges on matters of history, age of the earth, origins, etc., the data observed must be interpreted and reconstructed in view of this superior divine revelation which is supremely embodied in the Bible. Ultimate authority for knowledge and faith is provided in the superior revelation of God in the Bible, and whenever biblical information impinges on matters of history, age of the earth, origins, etc., the data observed must be interpreted and reconstructed in view of this superior divine revelation which is supremely embodied in the Bible.

Introduction Data Relating to the Line of Descent Internal Literary Data: the Formula of Descent Archaeological-Historical Data Biblical-Genealogical Data Interpretations of Chronological Information in Genesis 5 and 11 Non-historical Interpretations Great Year System Secret System Systems of Figures Discontinuous System Historical Interpretations Successive Method of Reckoning Overlapping Method of Reckoning Conclusion Conclusion

Conclusions Time functions in a most profound way in the Bible.
The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 contribute to the progression of time in Scripture. Theologically, the succession from father to son, together with the spans of time, indicates God’s blessing and grace in view of sin and death. These chronogenealogies provide the time framework and human chain that link God’s people with Adam at the climax of the six-day creation event on this planet. Dr. Hasel reaches the following conclusions. / Time functions in a most profound way in the Bible. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 contribute to the progression of time in Scripture. / Theologically, the succession from father to son, together with the spans of time, indicates God’s blessing and grace in view of sin and death. / These chronogenealogies provide the time framework and human chain that link God’s people with Adam at the climax of the six-day creation event on this planet.

“The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11” Origins 7/2 (1980) 53-70
Gerhard F. Hasel Dr. Hasel’s article may be found in the journal Origins.

Summary and Narration: Carol Raney Design: Jessica Drahozal Photo credit:

The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback