1. 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!

Genesis 10-11 and Luke 3 Genealogy confusion

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by zrs6v4, Dec 25, 2010.

  1. zrs6v4

    zrs6v4 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    2
    This is probably a boring topic to most, but I was linking Luke's genealogy to the Genesis account and doing some highlighting. My confusion is that is seems Luke adds a generation that is not mentioned in Genesis. I listed and highlighted the added Cainan in Luke but skipped in Genesis. For Scripture reference see Luke 3:35-36 and Gen. 10:22-24/11:12. I am no expert and can't figure out why Genesis says that Aphraxad's seed was passed on to his son Shelah while Luke's seems to say Aphraxad's was passed on to Cainan and Cainan's son was Shelah? Thanks in advance for the help.

    Here's Luke's: 3:34-38 /Genesis Ch. 10+11
    Adam /Adam
    Seth /Seth
    Enosh /Enosh
    Cainan /Cainan
    Mahalaleel /Mahalaleel
    Jared /Jared
    Enoch /Enoch
    Methuselah /Methuselah
    Lamech /Lamech
    Noah /Noah
    Shem /Shem
    Arphaxad /Arphaxad
    Cainan /..............
    Shelah /Shelah
    Heber /Eber
    Peleg /Peleg
    Reu /Reu
    Serug /Serug
    Nahor /Nahor
    Terah /Terah
    Abraham /Abraham
     
  2. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. zrs6v4

    zrs6v4 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thank you, good find. :). I don't find this to be an issue at all. This argument is completely beyond my level in studies. Common sense kind of led me to come to a similar conclusion as the article. It stated:

    "Although it may be appropriate to view Luke 3:36 as supplementing the Old Testament genealogies, when all of the evidence is gathered, it appears that the name Cainan in Luke 3:36 was not a part of God’s original Word, but is the result of a copyist’ s error. And as we have discussed in other articles, errors made by copyists do not represent legitimate Bible contradictions."
     
Loading...