4i. Interpreting the Biblical Genealogies

a. Biblical Genealogy

We are familiar with the genealogical account of the Patriarchal Periods between Adam and Noah in Genesis 5. There is definitely a sequential order, which has long been the basis for counting time between Adam and the Flood of Noah.However, we have a strong discrepancy with the conventional interpretation of this account and the longer record of seasons found in the Ice Cores.I am convinced that the missing factor of two or three is found by a different, yet very credible interpretation of this account.This account relates the mechanism used by the Israelite nation to provide a calendar throughout the millennia, even as these people wandered about from place to place.As such it provides the necessary mechanism for us to place the recorded events and their dialogues with God in time.This is critical, since a prophecy from God can only be verified if we can find accurate records of what was said when, and when it was fulfilled.

We notice that some of the lineage accounts include the phrases, had a son and called his name (qara shem in the Hebrew) while others do not. I reference a book entitled, Adam When? by Harold Camping in the following analysis. While I have specifically disagreed with some of Mr Camping s other theological arguments, I feel that his position on this topic is well supported by the Bible and his conclusions fit very well with the consistent Big Picture view that I have been painting in this manuscript. Mr Camping makes the case that this phrase, called his name, is only used when the one begat is a direct son. Otherwise it refers to a descendent far removed in time. According to the use of this phrase, Adam was the immediate son of God (Ge 5:2); Seth was the immediate son of Adam (Ge 4:25 & 5:3); Enosh was the immediate son of Seth (Ge 4:26); and Noah the immediate son of Lamech (Ge 5:28-29).

The case is that there is an orderly progression of Patriarchs, each of who has a very long lifespan. However, they are not always succeeded by their immediate son. In many cases that son has perished before the father and it is another descendant later in the family line, who becomes the next patriarch. The proper interpretation of this account, whenever the phrase is not used, could well be that the line, which eventually produced the next Patriarch was started when this Patriarch was x years old. In some cases such as Ge 5:32, the phrase is not used, but it is clear from other information we have that the next Patriarch was a direct son. In this example, we refer to Ge 6:10 where it is stated that indeed Shem, Ham, and Japheth were direct sons of Noah. If a direct son is identified, then he must wait until his Father dies to become the Patriarch and thus to start a new generation. If a direct son is not identified, then what we can infer is that a distant descendant (who was most likely born in the year the current Patriarch dies) starts a new generation at that time. This new generation then continues as long as that descendant lives.

Using this interpretation, we can extend the timeline considerably. Whenever the key phrase is not use, we must interpret the word, begot to pertain to a distant descendant, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Here’s the formula:

A lived x years and begot the line that produced B and A then continued to live y more years. After that time, B replaced A as the next Patriarch in succession.

I feel safe presuming that as long as a Patriarch lives, he is the Patriarch. The descendant who follows only becomes Patriarch upon his death. There is an argument, which states that the seceding Patriarch must be born in the year the existing Patriarch dies. This makes sense to me, since then the Patriarchal line he continues cannot be begotten until after he becomes Patriarch himself. This methodology would produce a traceable calendar, where all ages given for Patriarch B relate to time counting from when he became Patriarch. So, if we layout the timeline from Adam to the Flood using this interpretation, we get 6023 years (see Table 1).

Table 1:

Patriarch	Duration of His Generation	Total Years since Adam When He Died
Adam	930 years	930
Seth	112 = 130 + 912 - 930	1042
Enosh	98 = 105 + 905 - 912	1140
Cainan	910	2050
Mahalaleel	895	2945
Jared	962	3907
Enoch	365	4272
Methuselah	969	5241
Lamech	777	6018
Noah	5 = 600 +182 - 777	6023
Flood

Following the Flood, Genesis 11 presents another calendar for keeping the timeline down to Abraham. In this account the key phrase, called his name is not used anywhere, but in two cases there is supporting text elsewhere to support a direct son. In the case of Noah, we read in Ge 6:10 that he had three sons, Seth, Ham, and Japheth. In Ge 7:13 again Noah and these direct sons with their wives entered the Ark. Also in Ge 9:18 we see that these are contemporary relatives.

The other case that can be shown to be a direct father son relationship is with Terah and his son Abraham. To show this relationship we read in Ge 11:27-28, 31 that Terah had three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran, but Haran died before Terah died. Verse 31 tells us that Terah took his son, Abram to the city of Ur. Clearly Abram was a direct son of Terah. However, Ge 11:26 seems to imply that all three sons of Terah were born when Terah was 70 years old. (Triplets??) However Ge 11:32 states that Terah was 205 when he died in the city of Haran, where he was with Abram. Then Ge 12:4 indicates that after Terah s death, Abram left the city of Haran at the age of 75. This then means that Abram was actually born when Terah was 130 years old, and it was either Nahor or Haran, who was born when Terah was 70. Abram s name is probably mentioned first because of his most important role in God s plan of salvation.

Another generation of interest is the situation with Shem. Ge 5:32 states that Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japeth when he was 500 years old. In Ge 11:10 we read that Shem was 100 years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the Flood. Ge 10:11 & 7:6 tell us that Noah was 600 years old when the Flood came, so Shem was then 98 when the Flood came. Therefore, Shem was born when Noah was 502 years old. If Japeth was younger than Shem (Ge10:21), it must have been Ham, who was actually born when Noah was 500 years old. Again, Shem is mentioned first in all probability, because he generated the family line for the calendar.

As for the rest of the names mentioned in the Genesis 11 lineage, we cannot find any support in the Bible to show direct father/son relationships. Therefore according to our formula for interpreting the language of these timelines, we must believe that each name defines a successive generation, just as it did in the Genesis 5 account.

We can add a few more generations to the lineage, since we know that Isaac was the direct son of Abraham ((Ge 21:5) and Jacob was the direct son of Isaac (Ge 25:26). Abraham fathered Isaac when he was 100 (Ge 21:5), and he died at 175 (Ge 25:7). Isaac fathered Jacob at 60 (Ge 25:26) and he died at 180 (Ge 35:28). Jacob went to Egypt when he was 130 (Ge 47:9), and he died at 147 (Ge 47:28). In Exodus 12:40 we read that the Sojourn in Egypt was 430 years.

Using this information to establish the timeline between the Flood and the Exodus, we get 3543 years (see Table 2)

Table 2:

Patriarch	Duration of His Reign	Total Years since the Flood at His Death
Noah	300	300
Shem	202	502
Araphaxad	438	940
Salah	433	1373
Eber	464	1837 Peleg was born in this year.
Peleg	239 Tower of Babel built(Ge 10:25)	2076
Reu	239	2315
Serug	230	2545
Nahor	148	2693
Terah	205	2898
Abram	100 = 130 + 175 - 205	2998
Isaac	105 = 100 + 180 - 175	3103
[Jacob arrives in Egypt ]	[ 10 = 60 + 130 180]	3113
Jacob	27 = 60 + 147 - 180	[3130]
[Exodus from Egypt]	[430]	3543 (430 years after Jacob arrived in Egypt)

So, we see that Genesis 5 & 11 are a calendar. Each Patriarch s lifetime represents a generation. Similarly, Christ represents a generation, which even now is in progress. As we read in Matthew 24:34, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled.

b. The Sojourn in Egypt

During the Israelite s sojourn in Egypt they seem to have given the job of maintaining their calendar to the family of Levi. Ex 6: 16-20 states that, These are the sons of Levi according to their generations: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, and the years of Levi are137. It goes on to say that Amram and Jochedbed begot Aaron and Moses, but it does not use the key phrase. Camping makes a case for Levi arriving in Egypt at age 60 and living there another 77 years. Numbers 26:57-59 states that Kohath followed Levi and he begat Amram. Kohath s patriarchy lasted 133 years and Amram lasted 137. At the time of the exodus, Aaron was 83years old. The total time of this sojourn in Egypt would then total to 430 years, which concurs with Ex 12:40-41. As such, I see a good correlation and justification for believing this method of reckoning time from the Israelite accounts recorded in the Bible. The Israelite nation was definitely serving as God s calendar both to reckon time and to record historical events. This is significant, since we only know that God s prophecies were fulfilled because His people kept such complete and accurate records

The next task is to establish a correlation between the Israelite calendar and the historical dates recorded elsewhere.

During the sojourn in Egypt we should be able to find this correlation, since there are records of Egyptian dynasties and there should be records of the Israelites living in this country as well. There is circumstantial evidence that relates the Hyksos people to the Israelites. There is no precise chronological data, but Camping makes an excellent case for this by showing a strong correlation between the Biblical account and the secular records. The historian, Josephus concurred with this connection as well.

The atypical case is made by the historian, Josephus, that the Hyksos people, who lived in Goshen were actually the Hebrews. The secular records indicate that the Hyksos began to lose their position of political leadership in Egypt around 1600 BC. This happened during the reign of Egyptian pharaoh, Ahmose I, the first king of the 18^th dynasty.

.

c. Moses

With all of the other details given in Ex 2: 1-10, it is significant that Amram and Jochebed are not specifically named as the parents of Moses. The key phrase qara shem is only used to state that Moses was specifically the son of some unnamed man and woman in Ex 2:1, who named their son, Moses.

I see a valid case for the theory that Queen Hatshepsut, one of the pharaohs of the 18^th dynasty of Egypt, was actually the princess, who in her youth drew Moses out of the water and adopted him as her son in ~ 1527BC.

The Egyptian name Moses means son of . In Ex 2:10, the princess named the baby, Moses, because she drew him out of the water. With the emphasis on the fact that it was she who saved him. She had found him and she had made him her son. This follows logically , since her family name on one side was Ahmose (son of Ah) and her father s name was Thutmose I (son of Thoth). The Hebrew word mashah means to draw out. However, it does not necessarily follow that this is the reason he was called, Moses. Note, Christ Himself is identified with Israel by the phrase, Out of Egypt have I called my son (Hosea 11:1, Matt 2:15). Moses is a type of Christ and he too was called out of Egypt.

Where does the Bible relate Queen Hatshepsut to Moses? Ex 2:15 tells us that Moses was 40 years old when he killed an Egyptian and fled Egypt, where the pharaoh sought to kill him. The Bible says that the pharaoh, who sought to kill him, died while Moses was in Midian (Ex 2:23 & 4:19). King Thutmose III began to reign in 1501BC and we believe he is the one that died in the Red Sea at the start of the Exodus ~1447BC. The theory I agree with suggests that there was a period of co-regency in 1487BC, when Moses fled from Egypt, with two kings on the throne. One was Thutmose III, who had begun to reign in 1501BC, but the other was Hatshepsut. She became the dominant ruler because of her superior royal blood lines, and she was given the title, King , even though she was a woman! They shared the throne for 25 years.

As the adopted son of King Hatshepsut, Moses held a high position in the palace. During this period, the Israelites had been enslaved. Ahmose I initiated the process of forcibly removing the Israelites from power as he started the 18^th dynasty. Successive rulers, no longer knew Joseph (Ex 1:8). Thutmose I began ruling around 1540BC, when Moses was born. His one surviving child was princess Hatshepsut, but he had other sons, Thutmose II and Thutmose III by two other queens.

When Moses killed the Egyptian and confirmed his stronger allegiance to the Hebrew slaves, she needed to rectify her mistake in adopting him by attempting to kill him as he fled into the Midian desert, to tend sheep. Ex 2:23 then applies to the death of King Hatshepsut in 1481BC, six years after Moses fled into the desert. Thutmose III continued to reign as the sole ruler, then, until Moses returned to lead the Israelites out of Egypt in ~1447BC.

There is secular evidence that two pharaohs were again on the throne at the time of the Exodus. Thutmose III was reigning in his 54^th year. His first born son was not reigning with him. Instead Amenhotep II, another younger son, began to co-reign with his father just 4 months before the Exodus. There is room to believe that his older brother, the First Born of Thutmose III, is the son who died in the 10^th plague just prior to the exodus.

d. Completing the Timeline

Here’s what we have now, counting backwards from AD 2000 to the creation of Adam:

2000 AD

1447 BC Exodus

4990 BC The Great Flood [3543 between the Exodus and the Flood}

11013 BC The creation of Adam [6023 years between the Flood and Adam s creation]

This totals 13013 years, which correlates much better with the present interpretation of seasons recorded in the Greenland Ice Cores .

I still suggest that there is a certain tolerance in the interpretation of those ice core records as well. However, Dr Alley indicates that there is indeed a major change in the records around 11,500 cycles. If this point were around 7000 years ago, it would coincide with the Biblical data for the Flood derived above. As it is, perhaps the cores contain the record of the original earth when it was formed. To have any ice caps, as it should have, those caps should have been created with a record of seasonal variations, because all ice caps must have these records given a planet with seasonal variations. When God creates something, He does it with great attention to even the minutest details. Then, for the next ~13000 years we find the typical seasonal variations. If there is no impact to the typical record around the time we estimated the Flood to have occurred, then this could mean that the Flood did not cover both Poles. The jury is still out on all this, but I think we are on the right track to eventually understand how to properly correlate the biblical accounts and the observable evidence in the world around us today.

28 September 2001 � back home next �