Years of rewarding research have revealed with considerable certainty that about 50 names are omitted between Eber and Peleg in Shem’s genealogy (Genesis 11). This finding dates Noah’s Flood to around 4000 BC and Creation two millennia earlier. Many arguments supporting this finding are found in chapter 7 of The Hidden Beauty of Hebrew Genealogies: Harmonizing Old Testament Words and Numbers (HB) and are summarized below. HB (300+ pages) clarifies how the Bible uses genealogies and has been over 20 years in the making. It is grounded in the inerrancy of Scripture and stands packed with new ideas.
Author Lloyd Tontz Anderson (1935-Present) welcomes questions/comments/suggestions. Download the full text for free at Hebrewgenealogies.com. lloydanderson1935@gmail.com.
Arguments for Missing Generations
Finding: The biblical author intentionally omitted at least 40 and more likely 50 generations between Eber and Peleg in Shem’s genealogy of Genesis 11. Three profound contrasts between it and Adam’s Pre-Flood list open the door to this revelation.
First Contrast: Longevity. Pre-Flood longevity did not change. All seven listed in Adam’s genealogy who died before the Flood lived about 900 years. All of Shem’s recorded descendants were born after the Flood. But in contrast, his first three generations lived 438, 433 and 464 years, an average of 445 years. No listed person born after them lived longer. Four hundred forty-five is an astonishing 50% decrease from the average Pre-Flood lifespan. But it is the biblical record, though unnoticed or thought unimportant for 2000 years.
Second Contrast: Maturity. Arriving at adulthood and beginning families declined by a whopping two-thirds. The listed Pre-Flood people started families around the age of 100. The first three Post-Flood generations started families in their 30’s. Again, the numbers: ages 35, 30 and 34 for the first three generations in Shem’s line born after the Flood vs 105, 90, 70, 65, 162, 187 and 182 for those in Adam’s line. HB removed Adam from this calculation because he was created a mature adult. It also removed Enoch because he was unique among those born before the Flood. He did not die. At the age of 365, God took him to heaven.
Third Contrast: Declining Longevity. However, a third kind of longevity change occurred after the Flood as well. Longevity itself began a gradual decline. Beginning with an average lifespan of 445 years, this steady decline continued until it stabilized at 70 years. The total Post-Flood decline was an astonishing 375 years (445 – 70 = 375). The average decline was four or five years to begin with, but eventually slowed to just several years per generation. It took around 2600 years for this third kind of longevity contrast to run its course (from the Flood c. 4000 BC to the end of Moses’ life c. 1400 BC). Yet, the decline between Eber and Peleg was 225 years which is found by subtracting the lifespan Scripture gives for Peleg from the lifespan it gives for Eber (464 – 239 = 225). This portion of the decline is over 50% of the total decline.
Thus, Post-Flood humans suffered three astonishing changes to human longevity. Not only was there an immediate 50% decline in lifespans and a two-thirds decrease in reaching adulthood, but a continuous decrease of longevity after the Flood over the next two and a half millennia. Identifying these three longevity contrasts forces the conclusion that the decline in lifespans between Eber and Peleg is explained by the omission of as many as 50 generations.
How could Bible expositors make such a blunder as to insist Shem’s list had no omissions? The lifespans of Adam, Enoch, Noah and Shem masked these observations. Adam was created a mature adult. Enoch did not die. To include Enoch in the Pre-Flood average lifespan lowers it by nearly 100 years. Noah and Shem lived both before and after the Flood—Noah lived 600 years before and 350 after while Shem lived 100 years before and 500 after. This means they experienced both the forces of the Flood and the new conditions following the Flood as well as the more agreeable Pre-Flood conditions.
Since Noah lived most of his life before the Flood, his longevity was not greatly affected. If he had lived all his life before the Flood, he could have lived over 1000 years. Shem, however, lived five-sixths of his life after the Flood so his entire lifespan was greatly reduced from what it could have been if he had lived his entire life before the Flood. Only by removing Adam, Enoch, Noah and Shem from chronology charts can the full contrast between Pre-Flood and Post-Flood lifespans become apparent.
Years Omitted. There were no children on the Ark, only four couples. The lifetimes of the first three generations born after the Flood averaged 445 years. The next three individuals in Shem’s list, the 4th, 5th and 6th names, lived 239, 239 and 230 years, nearly 50% fewer years than the first three names. No explanation is given for this enormous decline. The writer continues as if the reader would understand—he skipped a long list of names as commonly happened in Hebrew genealogies. How many years does this represent?
Two numbers are needed: the average generation which was 32 years and average decline which was 4.5 years per generation. Since Peleg lived 225 fewer years than Eber (464 – 239 = 225), about 50 generations were deliberately omitted (225 / 4.5 = 50). Multiplying those 50 generations by the typical 32 years per generation indicates about 1600 years are missing (32 x 50 = 1600). Adding those skipped years to the date of Peleg’s birth (2417 BC est.) and the 101 years from the Flood until Eber’s birth gives a Flood date of 4118 BC (2417 + 1600 + 101 = 4118 BC). In round numbers, the Flood occurred around 4000 BC.
Hangup: chronogenealogies. The genealogies of Shem and Adam contain a second feature that blinds inerrancy literalists. The author states the age of each father when he sired the offspring that continued the reported line. That number is correct. It tells when the father begat his immediate son, whether that son is the son named in the text or a skipped son. Those who insist that number tells when the named son was born have invented a special word for that kind of genealogy. They call it a chronogenealogy.
But is it such a device? First, Scripture does not identify it that way. Second, adding the begetting years is not prescribed by Scripture. Third, Scripture itself does not sum those years. Since God was silent on the dates of the Flood and Creation, He apparently had some reason for not supplying such information when the Holy Spirit gave that Scripture. Times have changed. Now it is necessary to have a better Flood date. HB takes the biblical information that is available now and figures a reasonable range of time from that information. Anything more verges on putting words in God’s mouth.
The chronogenealogists ask, “Why else would God give those birthing numbers?” Old Testament scholars have suggested other sound reasons which can be read in chapter seven. They also point to Adam’s list which gives both the years before the birth of the son, the years after and totals them so there would be no uncertainty. In that case, God summed just two numbers nine consecutive times to assure the reader that those people actually lived that long. God is perfectly capable of summing the years of the lists if He meant them to be summed.
Weighing the Biblical Evidence
Four powerful lines of evidence support the finding of missing generations in Shem’s genealogy. The first line is the textual correction of Exodus 12:40. Incorrectly understanding this verse, Archbishop James Ussher added the numbers in Shem’s genealogy (Genesis 11) to date the global Flood to 2348 BC and Adam’s list (Genesis 5) to date Creation to 4004 BC. One hundred years after Ussher, textual scholars corrected Exodus 12:40. With this correction It read that Israel sojourned in Egypt 430 years. Today, nearly all English-language Bibles other than those associated with the King James Version read that way. Since I Kings 6:1 places the Exodus 480 years before Solomon began the temple, the Exodus happened in 1446 BC and the 430-year sojourn began in 1876 BC.
A second major line of evidence is how biblical authors recorded genealogical lines. Lines were just as correctly recorded whether complete or abbreviated. For example, in a line the stated son might be the father’s immediate son or any son (descendant) further down the line. While modern genealogies don’t work that way, such a practice was not considered an error in Hebrew genealogies.
A third major line of biblical evidence (explained above) is that the lifespans of those who lived and died before the Flood did not change while the lifespans of those born after the Flood declined steadily. The clue to missing generations was that after the first three names in Shem’s list, longevity abruptly decreased by half. Omitting about 50 names explains that gap.
A fourth major line of biblical evidence is the Ice Age and Job’s vivid memories of it. While not mentioned above, HB devotes three chapters (chapters 9-11) to this and additional evidence from the Book of Job. He and the other speakers, including God, frequently mentioned ice age phenomena. Because of his 280-year lifespan, his ordeal is logically dated around 2550 BC when the Ice Age was ending. Since the Flood produced the conditions that brought on an ice age, the Great Ice Age also points to a c. 4000 BC Flood date.
Numerous misinterpretations obscure these four lines of biblical evidence pointing to a c. 4000 BC Flood date and a c. 6000 BC Creation date. Once they are corrected the truth will become obvious and problems with these genealogies will be replaced with a new level of confidence in the integrity of Scripture.
Comments