Talk:Genealogies of Genesis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expand this Article or Separate it?

I'm fascinated by this stuff. Why not expand this genealogy and connect it to those in Matthew and Luke? Keep it within Genealogies of Genesis or build a new article Genealogies of the Bible? It might make more sense to build my own account & page to start assembling the Genealogies rather than within this article as I've been doing. I'd sure welcome some help though.— Ep9206 02:30 EST, 5 August 2006

First of all, please sign your comments on this talk page in the Wikipedia manner: Create an account and sign in at the upper right-hand corner of any Wikipedia page. After you have composed your comment, type four tildes ~~~~. Wikipedia will replace the four tildes with your username and the date and time automatically—you do not type your name at all. Whatever you do, do NOT use Microsoft Word to compose either your comments to this talk page or to the article—the hidden tags used within Word for formatting will often destroy whatever you write as soon as you try to submit it. Use any plain text editor such as Notepad or Wordpad, and if you save your compostion on your own computer before adding it to the article, save it as a text file (Press the save icon and Save as type: Text document). These editors may be accessed via Start | Programs | Accessories. After signing as indicated, you may preview what the page will look like by clicking on "Show preview" below the edit window. After you are satisfied with your composition, submit it to Wikipedia by clicking on "Save Page". For more help, see Help:Contents/Getting started.

You will have to decide how to proceed with your proposed expansion, in consultation with any other editor who wants to submit their opinions. I have no opinions myself, because you are going well beyond my submissions. If you compose your additions offline, make sure that no one has submitted any changes to the article while you were offline (click on Page history), otherwise your composition will overwrite their submissions. — Joe Kress 18:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ep9206's suggestion that if the genealogy series is expanded to include the whole Bible, that it should be divided into several sections so that each section is not excessively long. "Genealogies of Genesis" should be limited to Genesis, but could have a conspicuous pointer at the bottom pointing to "Genealogies of Exodus" which would have a backwards pointer to "Genealogies of Genesis", etc. "Genealogies of the Bible" would look like a Table of Contents with a pointer to each section. There is a lot more to be said about the Genesis genealogies that gets into the deep waters of ancient and archaic (pre-historic) numerals. Greensburger 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do East Asians and Native Americans come from?

In the genealogies of Genesis who is believed to be the ancestor of them?

Noah. Otherwise, this is a good question. Traditional scholars like Unger do not mention this.Ep9206 21:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian POV?

Since both versions of the genealogies are based upon version of the Tanakh, the article should explain which version of the Tanakh, and also explain any Jewish views on the genealogies. BlankVerse ∅ 17:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

any additions you have in that regard are welcome. Ungtss 01:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Statements like "The genealogies as recorded in Genesis were assuredly intended not as myth, but as history" are clearly non-encyclopaedic in toneLeon... 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I just have to comment that no that statement is not "non-encyclopedic in tone"; I find scholars make those kinds of statements all the time. Infinitelink 03:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Question on Cain's descendants

"Although Cain's line is taken no further, it implies that it continues beyond that by stating that the terminal sons were the ancestors of those who practice various trades."

Can anyone provide a reference for this statement which appears in the main article? Is there no remark regarding an implication that these descendants and their civilizations were "terminated" by the Flood? — Ep9206 19:00 EST, 4 August 2006

Genesis 4:20-22. Use of the present tense implies that Cain's descendants were the ancestors of trades practiced at the time Genesis was written. Whether written by Moses or other priests shortly before the Babylonian exile, it was written well after the Flood. I'm sure that every commentator explains this discrepancy in some manner. For example, intermarriage of Cain's descendants several generations later with the enumerated line in Genesis 5 would allow Cain's line to survive the Flood—the wives of Noah's sons must also be descended from Adam and Eve. — Joe Kress 03:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. "Present" tense? I'll be looking at my BHS soon. Did you look at in the Hebrew? Traditionally, Moses wrote Genesis, which means way before the Babylonian exile. That is before the Israelites crossed the Jordan to end the Exodus. If we stick with the traditional numbers as well, Moses would have been alive to see Jacob in Egypt. Shem, the son of Noah, would have been alive a good fifty years after Jacob's birth. In other words, Genesis could have been written only second hand after the Flood, though (count 'em) a good 15 generations later. I cannot see how Cain's descendants could survive the flood, unless the two (comparing the Seth lineage with the Cain lineage) Methusalahs and the two Lamechs are the same two people (a common conjecture).

Some Flood Geologists suggest that a destruction of Cain's descendants, etc would result in the evidences of vanished but fairly advanced civilizations.— Ep9206 02:30 EST, 4 August 2006

You seem to virtually ignore the women of the Bible, concentrating only on the male lineage outlined in Genesis. But that is only my opinion, and personal opinions are not allowed in Wikipedia—only opinions of published commentators are allowed (see WP:NOR). Whatever you add to the article must include references to the sources where you found the information. — Joe Kress 18:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I know the above comments were posted a while ago, but are ya'll taking into consideration that Biblical Hebrew has no tenses, period? The language is aspectual, it's ALL written as if it's "now" (sort of, but not really). Missing that is a broad oversight to be arguing about re-interpreting a commonly accepted view that the Bible states (as it does clearly) that everyone but those on the ark were terminated by the flood. Thanks Joe for asking someone to cite their source, I'm just wondering if that person realizes this about the Hebrew. Let me know if I'm missing something here. Infinitelink 03:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The men were "low hanging fruit." It's a start. The women's names will need some more preprocessing. I left space for some. Genealogies are big bags of worms. Do we show the lineages of each of Jacob's twelve sons? My next ambition is to try to link properly all of the different permutations on spellings (eg NIV, KJV, etc) for various names that already appear. For example, the link to Salmon currently has nothing to do with Salmon, husband of Rahab, but more with some well-known fish! Getting more of the BSH (Masoretic text) in should help. It's also hard not to steal too much Exodus material for this article. Thanks for the instructions on using tildes, etc. How did you hide them and show them at the same time? --70.137.153.173 23:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean that women's names should be included in the article, although it is obvious that they should. I was referring to your comment that Cain's line ended at the Flood. It could continue through any of the wives of the patriarchs of Genesis 5, including any of the wives of Noah's sons. But that is my opinion. When continued in this manner, the trades mentioned in Genesis 4:20-22 would still be 'present' whenever the writer of those verses wrote them, well after the Flood.

In order for the four tildes to automatically sign your name, you must 'Sign in' at the upper right hand corner of any Wikipedia page. You have signed in when editing the article as Ep9206. Be sure to check 'Remember me' when signing in to store a cookie on your computer. This means that whenever you access a Wikipedia page, you will be automatically signed in. But the cookie is not permanent, so every month or so you will access Wikipedia and find the default 'skin' or presentation of the Wikipeida page, indicating you are no longer signed in. You can customize your 'skin' via Wikipedia:Customisation. You can display any Wikipedia command such as the four tildes or the double brackets so that Wikipedia will not execute them by enclosing them in a pair of 'nowiki' tags (<nowiki>...</nowiki>), which are HTML tags unique to Wikipedia. A comment that you want to be read only by an editor but not by a regular reader is similar to a standard HTML comment, but two hyphens must be present at both the beginning and end, <!-- ... -->. You can experiment on WP:SB.

There are different views on how to indent comments on a talk page (WP:TALK). Your comment must not have the same number of colons as the comment to which you are referring in order to distiguish them. Some editors prefer to increase the indentation for every reply. For a long conversation, this will eventually restrict all comments to the right hand side of the page. I prefer to alternate indentations when only two editors are corresponding. — Joe Kress 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Genealogies are Abbreviated?

Many references (eg Halley's Bible Handbook) suggest that many genealogies are "abbreviated." I'm surprised that there is not yet any mention of that anywhere here.Ep9206 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of ad hoc theories that try to explain the impossible numbers in Genesis. If Methuselah was 187 when his son was born, it is tempting to say 187 was the sum of several generations that were abbreviated to one generation named Methuselah. Halley overlooked the possibility that the Masoretic (Hebrew) numbers are corrupted and the original pre-Hebrew numbers were archaic numbers that were not decimal. Greensburger 23:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To be a devil's advocate, the notion, of the numbers being impossible, also comes from ad hoc theories and presumptions at that. Textually, the pre-Flood super-longevities pose some interesting scenarios like Adam still being alive up to just a century before Noah was born. That would suggest interesting feedback loops in place for any oral traditions to happen in the nine generations therewithin. The same interesting feedback loops occur post-Flood, as Noah's sons are among the last of the super-longevity types. (The effects on longevity of the Fall and of the continued collapse/decay of Creation through the Flood are an interesting suggestion.) Seth would still be alive, outliving nearly seven generations after him, to see Jacob's adolescence; and Jacob living long enough to know Moses.Ep9206 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As for abbreviated generations, certain genealogies have interesting twists of inbreeding to them like Moses' mother, father and grandfather. Textually, the inbreeding insists that there is no abbreviation. This would be contrary to the suggestions of works such as Halley (eg Halley's Bible Handbook). This also means that works such as Halley are caught between several contesting theories.Ep9206 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

> Textually, the pre-Flood super-longevities pose some interesting scenarios like Adam still being alive up to just a century before Noah was born.

Either the Genesis 5 Masoretic numbers represent real people or they represent something else such as multiple abbreviated generations. Assuming for the sake of argument that they represent real people, and the minimum age to father a child was 12 (13 when the baby was born) and the 65 units for Mahalalel and Enoch meant 13 of our years, then the time unit was 65/13 = 5 of our years. Dividing Methuselah's 969 units by 5 = 193.8 years. Nobody lives that long because of the Hayflick limit when body cells stop growing and stop repairing essential organs of which they are a part. If you assume a more plausible age for fathering a child, say 16 years, 65/16 = 4.06. Dividing Methuselah's 969 units by 4.06 = 238.7 years. This is even more implausible than 193.8.

But if you assume that an ancient editor subtracted 100 from Mahalalel and Enoch's original number which was 165 (preserved in the Greek Septuagint) because the editor did not believe that a person 165 years old could father a child, and altered it to 65, then 165 could mean 16.5 and 895 could mean 89.5. Mahalalel fathered his son Jared when he was 16.5 years old and was 89.5 years old when he died. Nothing impossible about that. Keep in mind that when these numbers were first written down there was no symbols for zero or decimal point, so it was very easy to misplace a decimal point that had not yet been invented.

It was worse than that, because each city and each trade had their own peculiar ways of writing numbers. See History of writing ancient numbers. The Genesis 5 numbers were originally written in a number system that was used to count baskets, bowls, and cups of grain. This was in Lamech's and Noah's city Shuruppak which was a grain distribution city. Their system of writing numbers was not used by other cities. The chances of the Genesis 5 numbers being mistranslated by one of a series of scribes between then and now was high and is a plausible explanation for the large numbers. Greensburger 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But Genesis was written under Divine inspiration - are you suggesting that God deliberately mislead Moses?PiCo 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to assume that anybody was being misled. The texts of Genesis were preserved by scribes generation after generation who copied the texts by hand when the oldest copies wore out. During this copying process, the scribes made mistakes, they added glosses between lines and in the margins, they corrected what they thought were errors, and the result was different versions of Genesis. Three versions have survived and the numbers in Genesis 5 are very different in each of the 3 versions. Most English translations are from the Masoretic Text (MT) because it is the most reliable. The scholars who do the translations are aware that the other texts, the Septuagint (LXX) and the Samaritan Text (ST) of Genesis 5, have different numbers, but the scholars had no way of knowing which text has the original numbers. The numbers can be rationalized by assuming that the Septuagint has the original numbers and there was an implied decimal place. The scribes that wrote and copied the original numbers around 2600 BC were not writing decimal numbers. This is known because they wrote on clay tablets which have survived. If you read the cited reference by Besserat on how writing came about, you will understand how different their numbers were from what we use today. And how easy it was to misplace the decimal point (which had not yet been invented) when converting from archaic numbers to cuneiform numbers and then to Hebrew numbers and then to Hindu-Arabic numbers that we use today. Greensburger 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on Moses, (which isn't very good), Moses lived around the 16th century BC at the earliest (it's a little hard to tell what the article is saying, but that seems to be the earliest possible date for Exodus). This makes any writings in the 2nd millenium irrlevant, as God was dictating Genesis, and the genealogies of the Patriarchs, many hundreds of years later. Not to mention the fact that Moses would have been writing in Hebreew, not Sumerian or any other Mesopotamian language, and would not have been using clay tablets. In short, the writing systems etc of the Mesopotamian scribes of the 2nd millenium are irrelevant - unless you're arguing that the genealogies are themselves not genuinely God's word. PiCo 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody lives that long because of the Hayflick limit

The Hayflick limit and other Post-Industrial Era theories assume entropy and decay. If the Fall of Creation implies the introduction of these effects, then it is quite possible for common living organisms to live that long and longer if those effects are much diminished.

The texts of Genesis were preserved by scribes generation after generation who copied the texts by hand when the oldest copies wore out.

Side-note. Literally, Adam lived long enough to know Lamech. Lamech lived long enough to know Shem. Shem lived long enough to know Jacob and Moses. That's three patriarchs that spanned at least twenty-three generations with that many layers of feedback checks. Add to that the mental capacities of those people, each of which is far greater than what people have had in the 20th century, thanks to decays of genes and everything else. That kind of feedback loop ensures almost flawless transmission. Moses' writing is potentially only third hand oral when it comes to the Creation stories.Ep9206 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the transmission of Genesis texts after Moses when all of the eye-witnesses were dead. Texts get altered during transmission. The fact that the numbers in the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are different proves one of them is wrong. Greensburger 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the "fact that the numbbers in the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text are different" does not "prove one of them is wrong". It's not always a simple matter to translate Hebrew numbers, though a few simple do-it-yourselfers learn-Ancient Hebrew might suggest it is: and frankly we don't know who actually translated the LXX (Septuagint): the tradition is 70 men (Septuagin=70), probably Rabbis, but the LXX isn't a translation made in one shot, but it's thought it took centuries. Also, which LXX? There are several, though I'm not particularly sure that there are any differences in numbers here, but it would be nice for someone who actually knows (expertly, not amateurishly): there's a lot of TC on all this anyways that's available; maybe that's off-topic. Anyways, the Hebrew in the Tanakh isn't all homogenous: the thoughts expressed and themes are quite familiar, integrated, coherent, etc...but idioms, word-use, and numbering is odd: quite a challenge to actually involved oneself in if you're unfamiliar. we're talking a very old, very not-written-within-the-same-eon collection of documents full of history, culture, addresses to different cultures...again, maybe off topic. Anyways, the LXX is considered valuable as a tool for Textual Criticism, but usuall y AT THE BOTTOM of documents useful for it, as there are "Targums" (ancient translations), the Samaritan Pentateuch (here mentioned: good, except the Samaritans were more like what we think of as "those crazy nuts that are a cult" today), [Learning about the Samaritan history in relations to Israel is interesting, by the way, I recommend it...not necessarily from wikipedia, though.]; besides these, there are more sources for criticism. The Dead Sea Scrolls are another well-known example, but again, not always. And simply saying "well so and so agrees" doesn't help when they may/not be related in the ancestry of transmission...we have to be more intelligent in regards to documents and TC of them!Infinitelink 04:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

removal of numbers "analysis"

This section was wholesale from one book, and strays too far into hypotheticals, unsupported statements, and "let's draw a conclusion" for it not to be OR, FRINGE, or SOAPBOX. MSJapan (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More stuff needed

It would be worth noting that the these genealogies are all in the Primeval History (Genesis 1-11). Could also mention the way they function in the structure of the PH. By the way, the Table of Nations isn't exactly a genealogy, it's an ethnography. PiCo (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

other genealogy lists

Terah

• Abram
• Haran
  • Lot
    • Moab
    • Ben-Ammi
• Nahor

Nahor and Milcah daughter of Haran

• Uz
• Buz
• Kemuel
  • Aram
• Kesed
• Hazo
• Pildash
• Jidlaph
• Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan Aram
  • Rebekah (married Isaac)
  • Laban the Aramean
    • Leah (married Jacob)
    • Rachel (married Jacob)

Nahor and Reumah

• Tebah
• Gaham
• Tahash
• Maacah

Abraham and Keturah

• Zimran
• Jokshan
  • Sheba
  • Dedan
    • Ashurites
    • Letushites
    • Leummites
• Medan
• Midian
  • Ephah
  • Epher
  • Hanoch
  • Abida
  • Eldaah
• Ishbak
• Shua

Zohar the Hittite

• Ephron (sold Abraham the cave in the field of Machpelah near Mamre at Hebron) (the cave and the field and the trees)

Abraham and Hagar

• Ishmael
  • Nebaioth
  • Kedar
  • Adbeel
  • Mibsam
  • Mishma
  • Dumah
  • Massa
  • Hadad
  • Tema
  • Jetur
  • Naphish
  • Kedemah
  • (Basemath) (married Essau)
  • (Nebaioth)

Hamor the Hivite (Jacob buys a tract of land from his sons for 100 shekels of silver. Joshua 24:32)

• Shechem (wanted to marry Dinah)

Elon the Hittite

• Adah (married Essau)

Zibeon the Hivite

• Anah
  • Oholibamah (married Essau)

Essau and Adah

• Eliphaz
  • Teman
  • Omar
  • Zepho
  • Gatam
  • Kenaz

Eliphaz and his concubine Timna

• Amalek

Essau and Basemath

• Reuel
  • Nahath
  • Zerah
  • Shammah
  • Mizzah

Essau and Oholibamah

• Jeush
• Jalam
• Korah

Seir the Horite

• Lotan (brother of Timna)
  • Hori
  • Homam
• Shobal
  • Alvan
  • Manahath
  • Ebal
  • Shepho
  • Onam
• Zibeon
  • Aiah
  • Anah (discovered the hot springs)
    • Dishon
      • Hemdan
      • Eshban
      • Ithran
      • Keran
    • Oholibamah
• Anah
• Dishon
• Ezer
  • Bilhan
  • Zaavan
  • Akan
• Dishan
  • Uz
  • Aran

Potiphera priest of On

• Asenath

Jacob and Leah

• Reuben
  • Hanoch
  • Pallu
    • Eliab
    • Nemuel
    • Dathan (rebelled with Korah)
    • Abiram (rebelled with Korah)
  • Hezron
  • Carmi
• Simeon
  • Jemuel
  • Jamin
  • Ohad
  • Jakin
  • Zohar
  • Shaul (son of a canaanite woman)
• Levi (lived 137 years)
  • Gershon (gershonites camped to the west of the tabernacle)
    • Libni
    • Shimei
  • Kohath (lived 133 years) (kohathites camped to the south of the tabernacle)
    • Amram (married his fathers sister Jochebed) (lived 137 years)
      • Aaron (married Elisheba daughter of Amminadab) (camped east of the tabernacle)
        • Nadab (fell dead before the Lord)
        • Abihu (fell dead before the Lord)
        • Eleazar (married daughter of Putiel) (replaced Aaron when Aaron died)
          • Phinehas (struck the spear through Zimri and the midianite woman named Cozbi)
        • Ithamar
      • Moses (married Zipporah daughter of Reuel/Jethro priest of Midian) (married a Cushite)
        • Gershom
          • Jonathan (his sons were priests for the tribe of Dan)
        • Eliezer
    • Izhar
      • Korah (became insolent and rose up against Moses)
        • Assir
        • Elkanah
        • Abiasaph
      • Nepheg
      • Zicri
    • Hebron
    • Uzziel
      • Mishael
      • Elzaphan
      • Sithri
  • Merari (merarites camped to the north of the tabernacle)
    • Mahli
    • Mushi
• Judah
  • Er (died in cannaan)
  • Onan (died in canaan)
  • Shelah
  • Perez (mothers name was Tamar)
    • Hezron
      • Ram
        • Amminadab
          • Nahshon
            • Salmon
              • Boaz (married Ruth)
                • Obed
                  • Jesse
                    • David
    • Hamul
  • Zerah
    • Zimri (or Zabdi)
      • Carmi
        • Achan (stoned for taking 200 shekels of silver, 50 shekels of gold, and a robe from Shinar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks2 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Issachar
  • Tola
  • Puah (same name as one of the midwives mentioned in Exodus)
  • Jashub
  • Shimron
• Zebulon
  • Sered
  • Elon
  • Jahleel
• (Dinah)

Amminadab

• Elisheba
• Nashon

Jacob and Zilphah

• Gad
  • Zephon
  • Haggi
  • Shuni
  • Ezbon
  • Eri
  • Arodi
  • Areli
• Asher
  • Imnah
  • Ishvah
  • Ishvi
  • Beriah
    • Heber
    • Malkiel
  • (Serah)

Jacob and Rachel

• Joseph
  • Manasseh
    • Makir (given the land of Gilead)
      • Gilead
        • Iezer
        • Helek
        • Asriel
        • Shechem
        • Shemida
        • Hepher
          • Zelophehad (had only daughters, died in the wandering)
            • Mahlah
            • Noah
            • Hoglah
            • Milcah
            • Tirzah
  • Ephraim
    • Shuthelah
      • Eran
    • Beker
    • Tahan
• Benjamin (but see numbers 26:38)
  • Bela
    • Ard
    • Naaman
  • Beker
  • Ashbel
  • Gera
  • Naaman
  • Ehi
  • Rosh
  • Muppim
  • Huppim
  • Ard

• Dan
  • Hushim
• Naphtali
  • Jahziel
  • Guni
  • Jezer
  • Shellim

Zippor

• Balak king of Moab

Beor

• Baalam

Salu of the tribe of Simeon

• Zimri

kings of midian (killed by Israelites in numbers 31)

• Evi
• Rekem
• Zur
  • Cozbi
• Hur
• Reba

kenaz

• Jephunneh
  • Caleb
    • Acsah (married Othniel) (given the upper and lower springs)
  • Kenaz
    • Othniel (first Judge)

Gera (a Benjamite)

• Ehud

Anath

• Shamgar

Abinoam (Naphtali?)

• Barak

Joash (in Ophrah of the Abiezrites)(of the tribe of Manasseh)

• Gideon (or Jerub-Baal)
  • Abimolech (mother was a concubine in Shechem)
  • Jotham

Dodo

• Puah
  • Tola

Gilead

• Jair
• Jephthah (mother was a prostitute) (daughter became a nun)

Hillel from Pirathon in Ephraim

• Abdon

Manoah of Zorah in Dan

• Samson

Elimelech (married Naomi)

• Mahlon (married Ruth)
• Kilion (married Orpah)

Boaz (of the clan of Elimelech) (married Ruth)

• Obed
  • Jesse an Ephrathite from Bethlehem (was old in the days of Saul)
    • Eliab
    • Abinadab
    • Shammah
    • ?
    • ?
    • ?
    • ?
    • David (married Michal, Ahinoam, and Abigail)

Eli

• Hophni
• Phinehas

Zuph an Ephraimite

• Tohu
  • Elihu
    • Jeroham
      • Elkanah (married Peninnah and Hannah)
        • Samuel (his home was at Ramah)
          • Joel
          • Abijah

Aphiah

• Becorath
  • Zeror
    • Abiel
      • Kish (a Benjamite of the tribe of Matri)
        • Saul (married Ahinoam doughter of Ahimaaz)
          • Jonathan
          • Ishvi (Ish-Bosheth? he ruled for 2 years after Sauls death)
          • Malki-Shua
          • (Mirab) (married Adriel of Meholah)
          • (Michal) (married David)

ner (Sauls uncle)

• Abner

Ahitub

• Ahimelech priest at Nob the town of the priests (killed by Saul)
  • Abiathar

Laish

• Paltiel from Gallim

Maoch

• Achish king of Gath

Zeruaiah

• Joab (kills Abner for killing his brother)
• Abishai
• Asahel (killed by Abner. buried in Bethlehem)

David and Ahinoam

• Amnon

David and Abigail

• Kileab

David and Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur

• Absolom

David and Haggith

• Adonijah

David and Abital

• Shephatiah

David and Eglah

• Ithream

Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Combining the 2 charts

	Masoretic				Samaritan				Septuagint
Patriarch	Birth	Son	remain	Death	Birth	Son	remain	Death	Birth	Son	remain	Death	Wife/Wives/etc
Adam	—	130	800	930	—	130	800	930	—	230	700	930	Eve
Seth	130	105	807	912	130	105	807	912	230	205	707	912	Azura¹
Enosh	235	90	815	905	235	90	815	905	435	190	715	905	Noam¹
Kenan	325	70	840	910	325	70	840	910	625	170	740	910	Mualaleth¹
Mahalalel	395	65	830	895	395	65	830	895	795	165	730	895	Dinah¹
Jared	460	162	800	962	460	62	785	847	960	162	800	962	Baraka¹
Enoch	622	65	300	365²	522	65	300	365²	1122	165	200	365²	Edna¹
Methuselah	687	187	782	969	587	67	653	720	1287	167	802	969	Edna¹
Lamech	874	182	595	777	654	53	600	653	1454	188	565	753	Betenos¹
Noah	1056	500	—	950	707	500	—	—	1642	500	—	950	Emzara¹
Shem	1556	100	350	950	1207	100	350	950	2142	100	350	950	Sedeqetelebab¹
Arphaxad	1656	35	—	438	1307	—	—	—	2242	135	—	535	Rasueja¹
Cainan	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2377	130	—	460	Melka¹
Salah	1691	30	—	433	—	—	—	—	2507	130	—	460	Muak¹
Eber	1721	34	—	464	—	—	—	—	2637	134	—	404	Azurad¹
Peleg	1755	30	—	239	—	—	—	—	2771	130	—	339	Lomna¹
Reu	1785	32	—	239	—	—	—	—	2901	132	—	339	Ora¹
Serug	1817	30	—	230	—	—	—	—	3033	130	—	330	Melka¹
Nahor	1847	29	—	148	—	—	—	—	3163	179	—	304	Ijaska¹
Terah	1876	70	—	205	—	—	—	—	3342	70	—	275+	Edna¹
Abram	1946	100	—	175	—	—	—	—	3412	—	—	—	Sarai; (Hagar); Keturah

Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Greensburger, review WP:Burden You're continually adding a fringe source without bringing forward the requested proof of notability and relevance. You have been warned of the 3rr limit, and are about to be reported. You have also accused another editor of vandalism -- a grave matter. DavidOaks (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the reference to Bennett solely to establish that my remarks about decimal places were not original research. If citing her book and Best's book would falsely imply that these are reliable sources, then perhaps I can simply remove both references. Then the paragraph would look like this:

If decimal points (providing one decimal place) are inserted in the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers, the modified numbers are comparable to ages of modern people. For example the 930 for the age of Adam would be 93 years when he died, and the 500 for Noah would be 50 years when his sons were born, and the 165 for Enoch would be 16.5 years when his son was born, all of which would be possible for real people. However, there is no known ancient document that proves this is what the Genesis 5 numbers originally represented. Greensburger (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that including the sources exculpates you from WP:OR. But the sources are {{WP:Fringe]] and therefore unaccepatble (unless we can show that the proposals get serious discussion in an academic journal like "Biblical Archaeology"). There is no way really to include these, because including them implies they're worth consideration. They're not. DavidOaks (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the references. Greensburger (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Has it not been made clear that the material is WP:Fringe whether you provide refs or not? You do understand that you are now past the 3RR rule? I looked at your talk, and you have been blocked for edit-warring in the past, so you should understand how this works. Moreover, you've been warned twice right here. I don't really see any alternative but to post this to the aAdmin noticeboard. DavidOaks (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You did not make it clear that you still objected to my revised paragraph which have no references. I redrafted the paragraph to overcome all of your previous objections. I did not revert my previous versions, because I agree with you when you focused solely on the references.

Now focusing on the WP:Fringe issue. What in my latest revised paragraph is Fringe? The only statement of fact I make is about real people being able to father children at age 50 or 16 and die in their 90's, which you have previously conceded is common knowledge and therefore does not require a reliable source. If readers choose to infer that Genesis 5 is about real people, that is their inference, not mine. Greensburger (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have really done my best to explain what's intrinsically wrong with this material; coming and going with the references doesn't change a thing. Obviously I have failed to make it clear. I have reported you under the WP:3rr rule -- maybe an admin more experienced with these conflicts can communicate what I've been unable to convey. DavidOaks (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This was my latest paragraph before it was reverted:

If decimal points (providing one decimal place) are inserted in the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers, the modified numbers would be comparable to ages of modern people. For example the 930 for the age of Adam would be 93 years when he died, the 500 for Noah would be 50 years when his sons were born, and the 165 for Enoch would be 16.5 years when his son was born, all of which would be possible for real people. However, there is no known ancient document that proves this is what the Genesis 5 numbers originally represented or that any of these were real people.

DavidOaks has not responded to this latest paragraph. What in this latest paragraph is Fringe? The only statement of fact I made is about real people being able to father children at age 50 or 16 and die in their 90's, which DavidOaks has previously conceded is self-evident and therefore does not require a reliable source. The only purpose of this paragraph is to point out something interesting and not to claim historicity. The latest paragraph does not allege that the Genesis 5 names were those of real people. Some of the names seem fictitious such as "Adam" which is a generic Hebrew word for "man". If some readers choose to infer that Genesis 5 is about real people, that is their inference, not mine. Greensburger (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My response would be to try again to communicate what I was trying to explain before: given the fact that the biblical claims violate what we know about human longevity by a factor of ten or so, and given the fact that dividing them by ten or so makes that problem go away, a reasonable person would infer that someone is proposing that this is the correct understanding -- the numbers represent unpointed decimal expressions. And in fact someone did exactly that -- Bennett, for instance. Now, if we don't cite her, it's WP:OR (well, no, actually, it's plagiarism). If we do cite her, and we can't show that she's taken seriously by biblical scholars, it's WP:Fringe. That is, checkmate: there is no way to include this material within wikinorms. DavidOaks (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Like you say, this is self-evident, and therefore it shouldn't be included unless there it makes a relevant point. You say that this paragraph points out something interesting, but interestingness is not a criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. The criteria for including (even verifiable or self-evident) material is that it is covered by reliable sources. Only then is it considered noteworthy. (See wikipedia:UNDUE.) Lindert (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR states: "All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." A reliable published source for the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers is John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1930, pages 134 and 233. A reliable source for placement of the decimal points is the Fringe self-published book that I cannot cite in the Wiki article, but I do cite here: Ellen H. Bennett, Science of Knowledge and Reason, 1897, London, England, page 34, Table III numbers. Barnett is not a reliable source for her statement that the Septuagint numbers in Genesis 5 are in one-tenth years, but I am not citing page 34 of her book for unreliable statements - I am citing as reliable only the Table III numbers on page 34 of Barnett's book. The Table III numbers are provably reliable because they are exactly the same numbers as those shown in Skinner's list of the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers, and also satisfy the requirement of Verifiability. Having cited, in this discussion, the Table III numbers which are a reliable copy of Skinner's reliable copy of the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers, I have satisfied the WP:OR requirements. The fact that Barnett's book is fringe prevents me from citing her decimalized Table III in the main article, but there is no Wiki prohibition on citing the Table III numbers in this discussion to establish that they are not Original Research. Therefore WP:OR cannot be used as justification for reverting my 3-sentence paragraph that mentions the decimalized numbers.

I did not state as a fact that the decimalized numbers represent ages of real people. Instead I stated, as a conditional, that if decimal points are inserted, the resulting numbers would be possible for real people. I expressly stated there is no known reliable ancient document that proves that the Genesis 5 numbers were about real people.

Lindert has raised the undue weight issue. If a vote were taken on beliefs held by Biblical scholars on Genesis 5, many would say the numbers are fiction and/or corrupt, regardless of what the numbers mean. A literalists would say the death age numbers mean people who lived for 900+ solar years, but not real people. Only a small minority would say yes the numbers are corrupt but originally meant ages similar to people living today. Being a minority view, only a few sentences are allowed to avoid undue weight. The most recent reverted paragraph contains only 3 sentences and avoids any statement that would not be self-evident. Greensburger (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There really seems to be a communication issue here. Sourced or unsourced, putting in these observations about decimals implies that they are relevant to the topic, bcause we do not deliberately include things which are irrelevant. I don't how to put things more simply or directly. Now, if this material is supposedly relevant, it's a really important claim, because it resolves a major conflict between literalists and other interpreters. You'd think that it would get notice from serious modern scholars. That fact that it does not is strong indication that it's fringe. So one method of including this stuff is WP:OR another is WP:Fringe, yet another is simply irrelevant or just plain plagiarism. It doesn't belong here. That's as clear as I know how to make it. Maybe it would help if you would explain why you think the material should be included, something beyond "interesting." The only reason I can see is to resolve the conflict between literal sense and what's known about human longevity. DavidOaks (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DavidOaks said "putting in these observations about decimals implies that they are relevant to the topic, bcause we do not deliberately include things which are irrelevant." The article is about Genealogies of Genesis which includes the names and numbers of Genesis 5. Any discussion of the Genesis 5 numbers is therefore relevant to the main article topic. Therefore observing the effects of decimals in the Genesis 5 numbers is relevant to the main topic. Moreover, decimalizing the Genesis 5 numbers is material, i.e. it makes a big difference in understanding one of several possible hypotheses about what the numbers may mean. The decimal hypothesis is therefore more than just interesting, it may prove essential to understanding Genesis 5. However, such speculation cannot be confirmed because no independent ancient document has be found that attests to one or another hypothesis. This is a problem with all discussion of Genesis 5, not just the decimalization hypothesis. Modern bible scholars do not want to waste their time speculating about numbers that appear to be absurd, when attempts to rationalize the numbers cannot be confirmed. So they restrict their comments to summarizing what other bible scholars have written on the subject, leaving further analysis to the non-mainstream Fringe. Because my most recent 3-sentence paragraph excludes explicit Fringe material and is restricted to self-evident observations, WP:Fringe does not apply. The accusation of plagiarism is false, because Bennett's book is identified in the present discussion and I rephrased ideas in my own words in the 3-sentence paragraph. Greensburger (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Greensburger, the article is not for sharing observations about the topic. It's an encyclopedia. Find a WP:RS that says the Bennett observations are important to understanding Genesis, and it will be clear why they ought to be included. If you include this with sources, we have fringe; if you include it without sources, we lack relevance and we have plagiarism. DavidOaks (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I did find a reliable source that says the Bennett observations are important to understanding Genesis 5! The reliable source is R. M. Best's book Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic, pages 106-107 on Genesis 5 that presents a detailed argument why "the units digit represented quarters of some time unit converted to tenths." On his page 108 is a table with numbers and inserted decimal points identical to Bennett's Table III. I verified that Table III is a reliable source by checking the numbers against another reliable source for the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers, i.e. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1930, pages 134 and 233. Because Bennett and Best represent a minority view about decimal points in Genesis 5 and are therefore labeled Fringe, I could not cite them as references in the main article. So I cited them in this discussion. Being Fringe does not alter the fact that they are reliable sources for the Genesis 5 numbers and their minority view they express, and reliable sources for the material expressed in my 3-sentence paragraph. Greensburger (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I hate to disappoint, but Best is also self-published and WP:Fringe, and when one fringe source cites another, the original isn't validated. This is an academic question. You need an academic source. Really, if it's the real deal in terms of scholarship, it'll be in Biblical Archaeology. One more time: the numbers in Genesis 5 do not need citing. They are self-evident. So is the fact that they can be divided by ten (or by any other number). What needs citing is the idea that one SHOULD do this in order to make the problems of literal interpretation go away. If you do not list that reason, it's irrelevant. If you do list that reason, it needs an academic warrant. DavidOaks (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In WP:GF I've been working on this, and have searched my academic databases, as well as Google scholar, and have found nothing but creationist websites to sustain the includability of this claim. I have thought about whether we could build a statement that acknowledged the obscure view that treating these numbers as decimals would resolve a problem in literalism, but that would suggest support for a decimal number system in the ancient middle east. I don't think we can do that without a whole lot more support. What good reason is there to include this material? DavidOaks (talk)

Unlike our decimal system, the ancient middle east used a sexagesimal system which alternated ten and six. Dividing the Genesis 5 numbers by ten would be consistent with the sexagesimal system. Leaving aside the problem of lack of academic support for division by ten, the main attraction of assuming one decimal place is it works. Dividing by 8 or 13 doesn't work. If a key opens the lock, it is the right key. What academics and creationists often overlook is a translator is expected to produce a translation that is plausible and makes sense. That is certainly expected of United Nations translators. If the translation is nonsense, it is the fault of the translator, not the critics. Even if a translation is plausible, it may still be flawed and then we look to more experienced people to do a better translation. But if millennia of smart, highly trained bible scholars have failed to produce a plausible translation, and an 1897 writer with no academic credentials, who wrote about astrology, produces a plausible translation of Genesis 5 that academics overlooked, that is certainly noteworthy, if not conclusive, and is worth mentioning along with the usual academic theories. I suggest my 3-sentences plus a warning notice that the theories of Bennett and Best have not met with acceptance by biblical scholars. Greensburger (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What you are talking about here is WP:OR plain and simple. It is NOT our job in an encyclopedia to settle arguments or resolve difficulties within a subject. We may report on the efforts oothers to do so. If you are a scholar yourself, you may include your own research and knowledge if it is published, but not otherwise. That is, you cite your own work as if it had been written by someone else. So go ahead and write that article, get it published in a reputable venue, and then put it in here. Or find someone in a reputable venue who says the same things you're saying. This is one of those subjects that is a magnet for WP:Fringe. The more economical explanation for these ages, and the one more generally accepted (though I don't have sources close to hand) is that it's part of a very common pattern of mythology which treats human history as a pattern of decline and decay -- just as Homer goes on saying how the heroes of the Trojan war lift rocks "such as no two men could now lift, as men are nowadays" Or back to the Bible: there were giants in the earth..." The "Golden Age," the "good old days," that's what explains these extreme claims of longevity. No amount of mathematical massaging will resolve the problem, becuase it's not a problem of different arithmetics, but of different worldviews. DavidOaks (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How can citing two authors that AGREE on the decimalized numbers be Original Research? My remark on sexagesimal was not for the article, but only to dispute your false statement that the decimalized numbers "would suggest support for a decimal number system in the ancient middle east." If citing both Bennett and Best would confuse you, then perhaps it would be sufficient to cite only Bennett and say editorially that biblical scholars have not accepted her decimalized numbers theory. Remember, this whole discussion is about my 3-sentence paragraph which is 100% based on Bennett. Greensburger (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) We've been over this -- if we don't cite them, just report their observations, it's WP:OR/plagiarism -- can't do that. If we DO cite them, it's WP:Fringe. Can't do that either. If we say that biblical scholars have not accepted her theory, we need a cite for THAT -- a WP:RS that takes note of the theory and reports that it has been rejected -- as has been done, for example with a fringe theory like Flat Earth or Sasquatch. There is no place in this article for mentioning the decimal theory. What's left to discuss? DavidOaks (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I strongly object to the notion that it is the task of a translator to produce a plausible translation. If the original is not plausible, then neither should the translation. A translator is expected to communicate what the original author meant, regardless of if it makes sense or not. And you suggest that this 'key' opens the 'lock', but keep in mind that it solves only a small portion of the puzzle, and makes the rest even more difficult. If you look at the ages beyond Genesis 5 they gradually ,and not instantly, decrease towards normal modern ages. Dividing these ages by ten does not work, as they would have fathered children as young as 7 years old. Combine this with the statement of Jacob (Genesis 47:9) that his life has been short compared to his forefathers (Jacob was 130), and to me it seems clear that the author(s) of GenWhat's left to discuss?esis really wanted to say that the age of men was far greater in the past then it is now. Regardless of how one views this in the light of modern science and observations, to change the text to make part of it more plausible is not translation, but 'correction'. And I'm sorry but I don't think that the view of a '1897 writer with no academic credentials' is noteworthy. If I may quote the due/undue weight policy:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article..

And though of course we needn't follow all policies to the letter (ignore all rules), we should have a good argument to deviate from them and to me it seems that, with all due respect, until now you have provided only your personal opinion that it is noteworthy. Lindert (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lindert said "...except perhaps in some ancillary article." Suppose I write an ancillary article which presents the case for decimalizing the Genesis 5 numbers and clearly states that this is a minority theory that was published by the two cited amateurs, but has not been criticised or even mentioned by biblical scholars. And that the only notable thing about the amateur theory is it produces plausible results for all of Genesis 5, although the theory does not apply to Genesis 11 or 47 which may have been written by other hands. Would such an ancillary article (with a link from the present article) be an allowable exception to WP:RS and WP:Fringe or would somebody demand deletion?

I agree that translators should not alter their received text and are expected to communicate what the original author meant, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. But if the received text is in a dialect that the translator is unfamiliar with, the translator should get up to speed on the dialect before translating apparent nonsense as nonsense. An unfamiliar text should be treated as a cryptogram to be deciphered based on the assumption that it will make sense if properly deciphered. Scholars specializing in ancient dead languages do this all the time. If the Genesis 5 numbers have implied decimal points (which had not yet been invented), inserting decimal points is not changing the text or correcting the text but rather is interpreting the text as it was meant to be interpreted. The test of the interpretation is whether it makes sense.

If you were translating a military story that said "Meet here at twelve hundred hours." whould you translate this as 1200 hours and divide by 24 hours per day to get the quotient of 50 days? Of course not, because you know that "twelve hundred hours" is military talk for 12:00 noon. By interpreting the numbers literally, the result would be a mistranslation. Likewise with Genesis 5. An ancillary article on the decimalized numbers theory of Bennett and Best should be allowed. Greensburger (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Bennett's book is called "Astrology, Science of Knowledge and Reason" - the title doesn't exactly inspire confidence. And it was published in 1897. Possibly things have moved on since then. As for Robert M. Best, his book on Noah's Ark was published in 1999. so he beats Ellen on that one, but he's not exactly setting scholarly circles afire - the best he gets is a mention on James Randi Not quite fair - he got a special on Discovery Chanel - but still, he's not a scholar. So I have to say, no reliable sources for the decimals idea so far. PiCo (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Academic-geneology.com

Seems like we have a small edit-war brewing. IMO this rash of links to http://www.academic-genealogy.com are a self-promoting plague that're cropping up on a slew of articles without much regard to relevance (much less quality). However, if there's a consensus for keeping this one here... (At the very least, the canned text can go, I think.) Alai 20:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I dont think that brevity is quality. For example stating the meaning of Adam as red is not explanatory. The word adamah is used everywhere as meaning mankind, yet its break down is not merely red, it is red earth, more accurately red clay if you do more than sit at home accumulating your supposed-knowledge. So to Enosh does not mean man because ish is the word for man, as in ish-star. But rather others correctly explain it by stating it as Mortal man, the grandson of Adam noting that all of man is mortal. In fact scripture explains this saying they started to call out to God, a calling upon God to hear them, (what are we to do). Likewise Eber or Heber as in Heberew means not just beyond but reaching the beyond, so that many correctly say passing thru. HIs son Peleg mat have passed on and passed thru to heaven, but Masoretic says Eber passed thru 191 years after all his sons died, in fact Eber died 4 years after his great distant descendent Abram of 175. So its not just the world beyond somewhere else in heaven or hell, it is the fact he passed thru alive not being those who die so fast in aging. The name Shem merely says name and i dont think readers will understand that it means having a name as others who translate it as renown or fame. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Origin Of Sources

This section by 98.144.71.174 was reverted because it is original research, cites no references, is rambling, incoherent, and fails to communicate clearly. For example the first sentence:

"The source of all scripture begins with the figure 1656."

All scripture? Really? Do the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy begin with the figure 1656? The number 1656 is not even mentioned in those books. Greensburger (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wive's names?

Do the names of the wives from the apocryphal Book of Jubilees need to be on this page called genealogies of Genesis? Instead of tacked onto the charts, how about a simple link to the Book of Jubilees? Putting these names next to the names of the biblical patriarchs gives the Book of Jubilees more weight than it deserves. See, for instance, Wives aboard Noah's Ark for other names of some of these wives. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Again. These wives names are from an apocryphal book, not Genesis, and this article is about the genealogies of Genesis. I'm recommending the removal of these names. (And will do it if the mood strikes me.) Any thoughts? TuckerResearch (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree in principle; as you said, I would prefer to retain a link or maybe a note that the Book of Jubilees (and possibly other books) give(s) names for these women. -- Lindert (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. TuckerResearch (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the wives names from the Book of Jubilees. This is an article on Genesis, not Jubilees. If you want to see these names, look there or this article: List of names for the biblical nameless TuckerResearch (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and worth noting is that Jubilees is not the only ancient source to name these women. A completely different list is given in the Cave of Treasures, written probably not much later. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Theory or fact?

I added a paragraph that mentions the fact that all of the Genesis 5 numbers from the Septuagint would agree with ages of people living today if a decimal point is inserted in each number. I cited two publications, one by Bennett the other by Best, which contain a table of these numbers with decimal points inserted. At issue is whether these are fringe theories and whether they are reliable sources. Neither Bennett nor Best is a reliable source for their respective explanations of why the Genesis 5 writer used numbers ten times what would be ordinary ages. And Bennett's and Best's (different) theories would be fringe if their theories were presented in this article. But this paragraph does not present their theories; it cites their publications only to establish that the decimal point idea is not original research. The numbers are from reliable sources such as John Skinner and it is a fact that if each number is given one decimal place, as presented in both Bennett and Best, all of the numbers in the Septuagint Genesis 5 agree with ages of people living today. That is not a theory - that is an easily verifiable fact. Greensburger (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that citing published sources means that your edits do not amount to WP:OR. However, that is not the only form of faulty editing. Another is the inclusion of WP:Fringe sources. It is indeed a fact that converting these numbers to decimals would make the assertions in the Bible consistent with what is known about human lifespan. But it is just as certainly speculation (not technically theory) that the number system in use by these ancient writers would lend itself to that approach -- that's a big claim, and if it had standing in the scholarly community, it would be a lot more widely disseminated and cited in serious biblical archaeology and palaeography. It really doesn't belong here. DavidOaks (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If the inserted paragraph were to claim that the Genesis 5 numbers were ages of real people in tenths of years and the only authority for this claim were two non-mainstream sources, then the paragraph could be rejected under the WP:Fringe rule. But the inserted paragraph makes no such claim. The paragraph presents the easily verifiable fact that placing decimal points in the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers results in numbers that are comparable to ages of people living today. For example, 165 for Mahalalel, with an inserted decimal point, is 16.5 which can represent the age when a modern teenager fathered a son. Just as there is no requirement for a Wiki editor to cite a reliable source giving a consensus of experts that 37.82 times 41.6 = 1573.312, because such arithmetic examples can be verified on a calculator; likewise there is no requirement that a Wiki editor cite a reliable source giving a consensus of experts that a man can father a son at the age of 16.5 or 19.0 or 50.0 or any of the other Genesis 5 numbers, because such ages are common knowledge and can be easily verified from modern census records. Greensburger (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd claim -- that we may not consider the significance of a claim in the context of the article. It is true that the self-evident fact does not require any sourcing at all. But it's imnplications are WP:Fringe, and the test, once again, is whether the claim is acknowledged by recongized authorities as worthy of consideration. Go try to find these scholarly discussions of the Bennett claim before re-inserting this material. DavidOaks (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And what implications are those? That the Genesis 5 names were of real people? Nobody can prove that. That the Genesis 5 names were fictional? Nobody can prove that either. You are trying to impose reverse onus on what the inserted paragraph did not say rather than limiting the scope to what the paragraph actually says. A neutral point of view requires that claims that the Genesis 900+ ages are worthy of reporting as if true and reportable counterclaims that they are fictional, merely because there are numerous advocates on both sides, should be balanced by a third less-published point of view that reports what you describe as "self-evident fact". Greensburger (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, including the claims of a source implies that the source's claims are worthy of inclusion, i.e., relevant, noteworthy. The implication of Bennett's note is not merely that the numbers may be divided by ten (any number may be divided by ten), or even that doing so makes the numbers consistent with what we know about longevity -- we don't need a source for either of those things -- but that it is a reasonable explanation for the difference between the Genesis claims and what we know of human longevity. You're aware of this, right? I assume so, otherwise, you would be noting that "90" could be re-written upside-down and backwards as a more reasonable "60," so that it is marginally possible as the literal age at which Sarah gave birth to Isaac. DavidOaks (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Stating that "placing decimal points in the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers results in numbers that are comparable to ages of people living today" is indeed an easily verifiable fact, but it implies that it is a reasonable hypothesis that the author of Genesis counted the ages in tenth of years. If this hypothesis has no significant support, then stating this fact is irrelevant. Wikipedia strives not only to provide verifiable, but also relevant information. Otherwise it might as well state that Salah's age is a prime number, which is also an easily verifiable fact. Lindert (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Need proof that this claim is taken seriously by WP:RS's in the field. DavidOaks (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010

What claim is DavidOaks referring to? That 16 year olds can father children? That people in their 90s often die of old age? If WP:RS required RS citations for such well-known facts, most of Wikipedia would would be cluttered with useless citations. I am not claiming that Bennett is correct that the Genesis 5 numbers are in tenths of years. I am not claiming that Best is correct that the Genesis 5 numbers were mistranslated from ancient numbers. I am not claiming that the Genesis 5 numbers originally had decimal points (which had not yet been invented) or a space to the left of each low-order digit that got lost during scribal copying. I don't know if any of these are true or not true. Greensburger (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Including Bennett's claim implies that it is reasonable to believe "the Genesis 5 numbers were mistranslated from ancient numbers" and that "the Genesis 5 numbers originally had decimal points" Otherwise, why would she make this claim, and why would we include it? DavidOaks (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bennett's and Best's claims are immaterial. I cited their books, not as authorities, but only to establish that this was not original research. In the new paragraph I pointed to facts that would be interesting to Wiki readers, regardless of how the Septuagint Genesis 5 text originated. It is reasonable to infer that Genesis 5 was mistraslated and several references can be cited suggesting that "years" was mistranslated as "months", although that would not be credible to Wiki readers who assume these were real people. Likewise reliable references can be cited that describe how confusing ancient numbers were. But inferences that can reasonably be made by Wiki readers are the readers' inferences, not ours. It is our obligation to report the facts and not draw reasonable inferences that are unsupported by reliable sources. Greensburger (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Etz

Looking at this after a few years, I was reminded of a certain article by Etz. Clearly respectable and not fringe, though not often cited. But then I see that Greensburger already added it on 26 Sep 2010, with nothing in the Wikipedia article actually using it.

Etz's observation, which I was surprised no one had ever noticed, was that all the figures for "son" and "remain" up through Lamech end in a 0, 2, 5, or 7 (the "death" figures almost follow the same pattern except Methusaleh ending in 9, suggesting those were derived by addition). So Etz theorizes that these figures were derived from an original set that were multiplied tenfold and then divided by four (thus, multiplied by 2.5 in the end), rounding down. The reconstructed original "son" numbers range from 25 to 52, all plausible. The reconstructed "remain" numbers all, except Enoch (which hardly needs further explanation) and Lamech (who he says was adjusted to not outlive the Flood), all fall in the range 320-361. Etz then says these were all artifacts of adding 300 to more plausible numbers. So he ends up with a list where everyone has very plausible numbers, with Methusaleh begetting at age 27 and living to a ripe old 88.

Now, an obvious modification that strikes me is supposing that the "remain" numbers were actually increased, not early on, but in the final step, by 700 (rather than Etz's effective 750), or maybe 730 (=365 x 2), or maybe even 800. With 700, worst case, Methuselah lives to 108, which is hardly unheard of.

Etz makes the point early on that "shifting the decimal point", or likewise taking years to be months, would bring the lifespans into a plausible range but have seven-year-olds begetting children.

Anyway, I don't necessarily suggest that any of this is worth including in the article, nor do I personally embrace Etz's theory, but I thought I'd bring it up for those interested. If nothing else, Etz is still worth citing as a good resource on the numbers as they stand and the related scholarly literature.

--SlothMcCarty (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

P source?

Hi, I'm a student at Miami University in a class on the Hebrew Bible. This article could use some background on the Priestly source, and I found some information in Coogan's textbook The Old Testament that would be useful. Here's a summary:

The Priestly source illustrates history in Genesis by compiling the genealogy beginning with the "generations of the heavens and the earth" and continuing through Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac to the descendants of Jacob's son Esau. Jacob's descendants are listed in Genesis 46:8-27, beginning with the phrase "these are the names."

Sctimmons (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sctimmons, for brevity and clarity, I believe it would be more advantageous if you omit 'beginning with the phrase "these are the names"' and just end the sentence there or elaborate on the significant differences of the P source genealogies compared to the other sources; tie the article and sentence together. ZarathustraSay20 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

On the "Meaning Column" in the Genesis Names section

There's a chart in this article that lists the names of various Genesis figures: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, etc., etc. Unfortunately, right next to the column with names, there's a "meaning" column, which is deceptive on at least levels. On the simpler level, it's deceptive because some of the etymologies are fake. For example, "Adam" does not mean "red." It means "human." Now, there's some speculation that, deep in the history of the Hebrew language, maybe there is some familial connection between /adam/ "human" and /adom/ "red." But it's just speculation, and certainly "red" shouldn't be presented the meaning of Adam. The same kinds of issues exist with other names. On the second level, there's the problem of confusing folk etymology with historical etymology. The Bible often makes "puns" of various sorts, like where a name gets assigned one or more associations based on words that sound like it. These words aren't necessarily the historical source. And finally, there's a false impression about the nature of biblical names. There's a sort of unspoken assumption that biblical names all "mean something" in Hebrew. But they don't, at least not across the board. Some names have pretty clear Hebrew meanings; some have kinda hazy Hebrew meanings; some have no Hebrew meaning that scholars can discern. Unfortunately, and this is especially true in nineteenth-century sources like Easton's Bible Dictionary or even Gesenius, some writers have felt the need to give an etymology for every name, whether or not this was really justifiable, and this has resulted in absurdities like you see in the chart, where the name Arpachshad is supposed to mean "I shall fail as the breast." An etymology like that is just as silly as assuming that the name Alfred means "all of red." That's not how names work.

There is no way to accomodate the complexities inherent in Hebrew etymology in a format like a chart column. We should scrap the whole column.Alephb (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've replaced a bunch of the unsourced genealogical claims with sourced claims. I still think we should scrap the column.Alephb (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

My edit on Arphaxad

I've added a clarifying note before the table of dates. Basically, Genesis provides two ways to calculate the date of Arphaxad's birth. Calculating Noah's birth date is easy (1056). On its face, Genesis 5:32 seems to place the birth of Shem 500 years after Noah (1556), and then Genesis 11:10 places the birth of Arphaxad 100 years after the birth of Shem (1656). Alternately, Genesis 7:6 places the flood 600 years after the birth of Noah (1656), and the birth of Arphaxad two years after the flood (1658).

Which method of calculation one picks will then influence every person born after Arphaxad. My preference would be not to have the big chart at all. However, if we're going to keep it, it should be preceded by a note explaining that there are two alternate ways to date Arphaxad (and therefore everyone born after Arphaxad. Let me know if there's a better way to phrase my edit. Alephb (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your preference - not to have the big table at all. We should be describing, not unloading hundreds of points of raw data. Agricolae (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And now the situation is worse. More points have been added, plus interpreting the data (categorizing the items into three color categories) amounts to WP:Original Research unless this is based on a source that makes the same three-fold categorization. Again, the phenomenon is better explained rather than being presented as a data-dump. Agricolae (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. If you'd like to replace the data-dump with wording, I'd be happy to look over your shoulder and lend any assistance I can. Alephb (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am completely unfamiliar with this material - it took me quite a while to figure out what the table numbers are supposed to be representing, (it was only my familiarity with the apparent common origin of the two Lamech descents that brought me here after I was alerted to the page's existence through an AfD for another page). My lack of knowledge of/access to sources would necessitate my own WP:OR to write anything, or I would have given it a go already. Agricolae (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh well. Me and you will have to wait until someone feels up to the job. Alephb (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Scope

Hello, User:Agricolae. I'm a little confused by your most recent revert. You said,

"Undid revision 822218797 by Alephb(talk) The idea that the entire book is organized around the genealogies is not something we should be claiming without a reference."

But there was a reference in the edit. Was there something wrong with it? Alephb (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sumerian King List

There are lots of books and other materials that try to make a comparison between the Sumerian King List and the Genesis 5 list. Maybe a mention about these beliefs could form a new section on this page? Here's a draft:

"In Christian apologetics materials, comparison has been made between the lengths of the reigns of the kings in the Sumerian King List (divided by sixty) and the ages of the patriarchs in the Genesis genealogies."

Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You say there are 'lots of books', but then cite low-quality paper from a meteorologist, and a self-published lecture that only makes passing mention of the Genesis pedigree. To merit mention, I think it needs more than this - mention from actual Biblical scholars that this is 'a thing'. Agricolae (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Sooner or later I can only imagine that Wikipedia will have coverage of the relationship between the Sumerian King List and Genesis, although this shouldn't be done by simply pointing readers at self-published sources and Answers in Genesis. I don't think you'll find any kind of belief in mainstream sources that the much earlier Sumerian King List is dependent on the much later numbers from Genesis. The general mainstream position is something like, "Because both start with a list of implausibly long lived figures, followed by a flood, followed by gradually decreasing lifespans that move into normal historical sorts of lengths, it's clear that the Genesis account is dependent on earlier ideas that circulated in ancient Mesopotamia." Something along those lines.

Anyhow, if someone wants to make a go at it, here's some possible sources to use: Friberg, pp. 241-2, Chavalas, p. 122, Hartman (1972), Tsumura, p. 53, von Soden, p. 47, Dalley, pp. 6-7, Currid, pp. 47-8. Alephb (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I like what Alephb is saying here. One rigorously thought out sentence will suffice for me. I'm not a scholar on the issue. How about this: "Comparison has been drawn between the chronology of Sumerian King List and that of the chronology of of the genealogies in Genesis 5, both of which start with a list of implausibly long lived figures, followed by a flood, followed by gradually decreasing lifespans that move into normal historical sorts of lengths." Something as simple as this. I refuse to add it to the article; I don't want to start any edit wars. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae and Alephb: I thought that the discussion would escalate out of control, but since it didn't, I decided to make an edit with a source from one of the books I was mentioning. I haven't read the other sources mentioned by Alephb, so I don't want to add them as sources without reading them. Please let me know what you think of the new edit and revert or change it as you see fit! Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae and Alephb: I made a new edit to the page- let me know if you have any suggestions. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The names of the patriarchs seem to form a sentence. It seems to be telling people what to do when confronted by an "undomesticated always mocking enemy"

The names of the patriarchs seem to form a sentence.
It seems to be telling people what to do when confronted by an "undomesticated always mocking enemy"

Adam Seth Enosh Kenan Michael Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah Shem

Undomesticated Enemy Serpent Get All-Meek Go down Get-Brother? From-Tav-Sheol? All-Mockers Rest There

Just granpa (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This may or may not be the case, but as editors we don't get to draw such conclusions. Without multiple reliable sources that explicitly discuss this, it would not be appropriate to include it in the article. Agricolae (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"decimal point" ???

The suggestion that a decimal point has been missed out seems bizarrely anachronistic. Does the cited author supply any kind of justification as to why ages might be counted in tenths of a year? Jheald (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your objection. As you said, the expression "decimal point" is anachronistic. Yes, the reference justified the tenth-year hypothesis on page 107 where it points to the fact that most of the numbers in the Septuagint version of Genesis 5 have a units digit of 0, 2, 5, and 7, but not 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, or 9 prior to Methuselah, which suggests quarters of years converted to tenths, rather than integers. It later explores in detail the fact that ancient numerals were not standardized as they are now and each city and each trade had their own way of counting. A sign that meant "one-tenth" in one city could mean "one" in another city and likewise with larger numbers. I changed the article to read "...if the Septuagint numbers in the above table are divided by ten (because fractions were apparently mistranslated as integers by an ancient scribe) the birth ages range between 16.2 and 23.0 and the death ages range between 36.5 and 96.9 which are possible for real people." Greensburger (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps also add some of the above explanation into the citation footnote, to explain the claimed plausibility? Jheald (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more likely that it was a missing factor of 12, not 10, reflective of a transmission error from earlier versions that used a lunar calendar rather than a solar calendar. Lunar calendars are more prevalent in latitudes closer to the equator (e.g. the Arab calendar, the priestly calendar in Egypt), so the change may reflect a relocation of the ancestors to more northerly latitudes. One possible tell is the sudden appearance of 365 in the list, just at the point where the age numbers start to diminish. Even a casual web search (e.g. Google "Age of patriarchs and lunar calendar") reveals a lot of discussion and publication on this very issue. The same applies to a possible telephone tag transmission error in Plato's account of Atlantis, if we take seriously Kuehne's proposal (in Antiquity 78(300) 2004 June) that this was a garbled re-transmission of the Egyptian account of the incursion by the Sea Peoples. In that case, a recalculation that replaces solar periods by lunar periods would point to a date that also happens to favor one of the two standard chronologies over the other (Breasted 1906 versus Shaw 2000), especially for the 19th dynasty. So, there, the hypothesis carries a predictive element, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:222:69FF:FE4C:408B (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Vulgate or Masoretic

I'm wondering why this article says that one of the genealogies derives from the Vulgate, rather than from the Masoretic Text, upon which I believe the Vulgate was based, and upon which I believe most modern translations are directly based. If nobody can explain or justify this, I intend altering the article to reflect the basis in the Masoretic Text rather than the Vulgate. Philip J. Rayment 02:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sounds like a plan:). Ungtss 00:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Huh? The genealogies are New Testament; the Masoretic text is Old Testament. The New Testament of the Vulgate was not "based upon" a Masoretic text (even though it prefers the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament). - Nunh-huh 00:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

um ... the genealogies of GENESIS are new testament? i think you'll find them right at the beginning of the old testament:). Ungtss 00:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes...well, I knew someone was confused, turns out it's me. I was thinking of the genealogies of Christ. Should've read better! - Nunh-huh 02:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no worries:). would be interesting to have an article about the genealogies of christ, tho ... do you have any particular info on them? Ungtss 03:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen them discussed on Wikipedia, but no idea where (one of the many Jesus articles)...no idea if any of it has survived, though. - Nunh-huh 01:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Latin Vulgate contrasts with the Greek Septuagint just as the Eastern Orthodox churches and their 5500 BC Creation contrasts with the Western Roman Catholic/Protestant churches and their 4000 BC Creation. Only new translations in the Western churches use the Masoretic Text, new translations in Eastern churches naturally use the Septuagint. Furthermore, the Masoretic Text was modified about the ninth century by the addition of vowel signs and a few other changes, so that the version used by Jerome was indeed different from the modern version. Thus the Vulgate represents an older tradition than the modern Masoretic text does, even if there may be no difference in the numerical genealogy. — Joe Kress 00:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Birth of Arphaxad, 1656 or 1658 A.M.?

The Patriarch Tables in this article conflict with the tables in Chronology of the Bible. The discrepancy comes from failing to correct for the birth of Arphaxad "two years after the flood" (Gen. 11:10) which ended while Noah was 600 (Gen. 8:13). The Chronology article shows how the months can be fudged to avoid contradiction.

Also, the death of Shem is corrected here.

One might notice that this chronology precisely aligns the birth in 1948 A.M. of Abram, father of the Jews, with the foundation in 1948 A.D. of the modern Jewish state of Israel.

(Many other mainly religiously significant dates A.D., particularly of the 1st Millennium, appear in the table: 0 (1 B.C.), traditional birth of Jesus; 130, Hadrian's visit to Jerusalem and desecration of the Temple Mount; 235, beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century; 325, First Council of Nicea; 460, expulsion of the Jews from Persia, many of whom fled to Mecca; 622; the Hajj; 874, occultation of Shi'a Islam's 12th Imam; 1787, United States Constitution; 1848-1849, (end of) the Revolutions of 1848.)

	Masoretic
Patriarch	Birth	Son	remain	Death
Adam	—	130	800	930
Seth	130	105	807	912
Enosh	235	90	815	905
Kenan	325	70	840	910
Mahalalel	395	65	830	895
Jared	460	162	800	962
Enoch	622	65	300	365
Methuselah	687	187	782	969
Lamech	874	182	595	777
Noah	1056	500	—	950
Shem	1556	100	500	600
The Flood	1656	—	—	—
Arphaxad	1658	35	—	438
Salah	1693	30	—	433
Eber	1723	34	—	464
Peleg	1757	30	—	239
Reu	1787	32	—	239
Serug	1819	30	—	230
Nahor	1849	29	—	148
Terah	1878	70	—	205
Abram	1948	100	—	175

26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.160.171 (talk)

Genesis Numbers

It appears to me that the Genesis Numbers table has a lot of errors. The Samaritan figures after the flood appear to be copied from the lxx cols. I have checked Skinner (1st ed). Whilst p134 has the same Samaritan figures, the table on p233 is very different. If the lxx col is meant to come from Skinner then the only 2 lucian figures he gives are: Skinner shows Lucianic lxx 134 not 130 for Peleg. Skinner shows Lucianic lxx 125 not 129 for Nahor. JulianPalf (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone pointed out your source that Shem dies before Noah. So in a real-time analysis of the 435-year life of Shem this is what i see by punching only known figures into my calculator and my rejecting anything that has not been used over the past 2000-4000 years. It is derived from Jewish Seder Olam Adam 3761bc in this way. The Masoretic span of 435 years is actually from Eber's birth to Shem's death. (1723-2158am =1656+502) However, this translates as being derived from the known 3761bc Adam of current existing Jewish calendar (and their 2105bc Flood in 1656am) +2+235 =1868bc versus Seder Olam Shem dying in 1603bc. Fantastic that 1868bc pops up because is 4025-1868bc as the base original historic truth. So to have a 435-year old Shem the figure 1556 is used as 3761bc Adam to 1556am +2+335 to the same year 1868bc or 2 years earlier as 1870bc if omitting the 2 years as this Wikipedia chart does. Otherwise, Seder Olam Noah at 500 in 2205bc has Shem die 435 years later in 1770bc. The years 1868bc and 1770bc are pivotal in every known world chronology (but I am the one who found this so, I am your reference your source, unless you demand prestige from someone else published).98.144.71.174 (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok have YOU fixed it? Carebear Bee (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)