78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

In Genesis 6:3 we read:

"Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'"

This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, I presume on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.

The hundred and twenty years spoken of by God in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that God had warned Noah about doesn't happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read,

"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:41)

33. Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Although a conclusive answer is not possible, plausible explanations can be found. The most probable answer to this is that the genealogy in the Masoretic text of Genesis telescopes the generations as does Matthew in his list. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX), we find the name of Cainan included as the father of Shelah, echoing what we find in Luke. Luke, writing in Greek, would have used the Septuagint as his authority.

On that same note, if we refer to the Septuagint, when we look at Genesis 11:12 we find that Apharxad was 135 years old, rather than 35 (which would allow more time for him to be Shelah's grandfather).

There is an alleged error in Luke 3:36. The genealogy gives an extra
Cainan not found in similar genealogies, such as Genesis 11:12.

Expositor Dr. John Gill gives ample reasons why this was a copyist error.1

Gill says:

This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in #Ge 11:12 nor has
he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in
the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by
Josephus, nor in #1Ch 1:24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is
it in Beza’s most ancient Greek copy of Luke: it indeed stands in the
present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and
therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be
owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke’s Gospel, and since
put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say “early,” because it is
in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental
versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to
stand neither in the text, nor in any version: for certain it is, there
never was such a Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, for Salah was his son;
and with him the next words should be connected.

If the first Cainan was not present in the original, then the Greek may have
read in a manner similar to the following. Remember that NT Greek had no
spaces, punctuation, or lower case letters.

TOΥΣAΡOΥΧTOΥΡAΓAΥTOΥΦAΛEΓTOΥEBEΡTOΥΣAΛA

TOΥAΡΦAΞAΔTOΥΣHMTOΥNΩETOΥΛAMEΧ

TOΥMAΘOΥΣAΛATOΥENΩΧTOΥIAΡEΔTOΥMAΛEΛEHΛTOΥΚAINAN

TOΥENΩΣTOΥΣHΘTOΥAΛAMTOΥΘEOΥ

If an early copyist glanced at the third line, while copying the first line,
it is conceivable that the phrase TOΥΚAINAN (son of Cainan) may have been
copied there.

TOΥΣAΡOΥΧTOΥΡAΓAΥTOΥΦAΛEΓTOΥEBEΡTOΥΣAΛATOΥΚAINAN

TOΥAΡΦAΞAΔTOΥΣHMTOΥNΩETOΥΛAMEΧ

TOΥMAΘOΥΣAΛATOΥENΩΧTOΥIAΡEΔTOΥMAΛEΛEHΛTOΥΚAINAN

TOΥENΩΣTOΥΣHΘTOΥAΛAMTOΥΘEOΥ

There is some circumstantial evidence for this theory. The Septuagint
(LXX) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament said to be translated by about
72 rabbis. Early copies of LXX do not have the extra Cainan in Genesis 11, but
later copies postdating Luke’s gospel do have the extra Cainan.

It might seem odd to suggest that there could be a copyist error in our
translations of the Bible. What is even more remarkable to me, however, is that
such possible copyist errors are so extremely rare. Paradoxically, the possible
existence of such an error merely reinforces how God has preserved His Word
through the centuries.