Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
146 bytes removed ,  02:47, April 11, 2007
→‎Basis of calculation: Remove Barr's biblical inerrancy addition. Apart from appearing to be argumentative, it was already mentioned in the paragraph.
Line 10: Line 10:  
An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
 
An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
 
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
 
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story."  <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref> It should be noted, however, that Barr also wrote a book opposing biblical inerrancy. [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1786]
+
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story."  <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>
    
Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>
 
Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu