Why Genesis 5 is a key chapter in the Bible
Multiple timeframes underline the historicity
by Paul A. Hansen
Published: 1 October 2008(GMT+10)
Genesis 5 is not a bare list of family names (genealogies),
but includes chronological data. This chronogenealogy strongly connects
the Creation (Genesis 1–2) and Flood (Genesis 6–9) events. It ties these events to God’s
created astronomical clockwork (chronology), which He completed on Day 4 to be for signs, and
for seasons, and for days and years—hence, the term ‘chronogenealogy’.
Historicity means authenticity
While the bare descriptions of the Creation and Flood events provide substantial
internal evidences for historicity, it is the chronogenealogy of Genesis 5 that provides external evidence. The
combination of the both kinds of evidence provides for airtight historicity. Each
kind of evidence is comprised of a broad three-fold context comprising chronology, sequence
and duration—when it happened, the order of events
and the time it took to complete (duration). These three evidences
considered twice (internally and externally) form a double historical context of
triune evidences for proof of historicity—‘airtight historicity’.
However, accepting only the internal evidence, instead of accepting both,
can result in questioning of the historicity. And once the historicity of the Creation
and Flood accounts is doubted, the whole Bible may be successfully doubted. We know
this because it has already happened—repeatedly.
All genuine (historical) events have internal and external evidences. We must recognize
these evidences as simultaneously existing so that we may present the strongest
case for historicity.
The internal evidences (Part 1)
… once the historicity of the Creation and Flood accounts is doubted, the
whole Bible may be successfully doubted …
The internal context for the Creation account is comprised of 1) chronology,
that is, the Creation event took place at a point in time called ‘the beginning’;
2) sequence, that is, there were enumerated created items on each of the
days; and 3) duration, that is, the whole Creation event took a specified
time—six days. In like manner the global Flood (and, in principle, all other
authentic events) may be also analyzed from within by the very same terms
of 1) chronology, the age of Noah at the beginning of the Flood (Genesis 7:11), 2) sequence, the waters rise, prevail,
subside, etc., and 3) duration, given by the age of Noah at the end of
the Flood (Genesis 8:13).
However, there is something additional to the internal contexts of these
two events which contributes immensely to their historicity, namely, the special,
unique interlocking external chronogenealogy of Genesis 5, which explicitly and authoritatively demonstrates
their relationship by multiple implicit references to the astronomical clock.
The external evidences (Part 2)
The external context for the Creation and Flood is as follows:
- The chronology that places these events in an absolute position
on an overall biblical time scale, i.e. 4004 BC for
the Creation week, 2348 BC for the Flood event, etc.
(using Ussher’s dates),
- The sequence, or order of occurrence of the separate events, i.e., the
Flood occurred after the Creation, and
- The duration, consisting of the elapsed time of 1656 years between
the two events (Genesis 5:3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 25, 28; 7:6 and 11) wherein
the ‘days and years’ of Genesis 5, are defined in the time-measuring system, the
astronomical clock, set up on Day 4 of the creation week (Genesis 1:14).
Two times three equals six for irrefutable authenticity
Photo stock.xchng
We see, then, that these same categories (chronology, sequence and duration) form
two distinct contexts, one internally within the events themselves, and
another externally tying the two events together. It is the external
tie that is meticulously set forth in Genesis 5. If this tie is broken, the historicities of the
events on either end of the tie are turned loose to be attacked separately. In other
words, it is asking for defeat to surrender the interlocked relationship—the
tie—given in Genesis 5.
No double context means a less likely event
We can also use these dual contexts to test for historicity. For example, the ruin/reconstruction
gap theory is comprised of interesting but imagined events. Bible references in
Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, which plainly refer to the kings of Babylon
and Tyre (and not directly to Satan), are imaginatively applied and inserted between the
first two verses of Genesis 1. When the proposed event is tested with specific
questions like, ‘When?’, ‘Within what specific context?’,
and ‘For how long?’, these questions result in further conjectures rather
than substantial answers. The search for evidence for an internal context
asks, ‘How long did the ruining last?’ The search for an external context
asks, ‘How long was it from the end of the destruction to the first day of
Creation?’ These, and similar questions, draw attention to the lack of historical
contextual evidence, thus making us wonder how such a scenario could have been seriously
advanced as a real event in history.
A doubted double context means a doubted event
It is a matter of historical record that chapter 5 has been the first to undergo
attack from within orthodox Christianity. This attack took the form of
a subtle assumption (most likely under pressure to reconcile evolutionary ideas
of ‘deep time’ with the Bible) that this chapter was totally boring
and superfluous and, therefore, irrelevant and so, for the Creation account, we
unwisely agreed that the debate about the extent of days
mainly centered internally on chapters 1 and 2 as a presumed stand alone
event. For the Flood account, we again unwisely conceded that the debate about
whether there even was a global Flood was principally limited
internally to chapters 6–9 (instead of including chapters 10 and
11) as a description of another presumed stand alone event. This was an error, because
it led to further doubts about these two events. We agreed to discount the external
tie and attempted to defend the disconnected events on the basis of internal
(stand alone) evidences. This is tantamount to laying down the sword and engaging
the battle with only a shield.
Evidences of a schedule
When we read Genesis 1–11, we can hardly escape the chronological
content. The total chronology is important in showing us that the events are real.
I do not contend that Genesis 1–11 is by any means an exhaustive revelation
of what took place, but I do contend that what is there actually happened as described.
More than enough information is given to discern a unified story that had a beginning
and is going somewhere in a measured and measurable way. The measuring
instrument is the huge astronomical clock (Genesis 1:14) which is meticulously implicit in Genesis
chapter 5 and explicit in the Creation and Flood accounts. This clock was completed
on Day 4 when the lights in the expanse of the heavens were created to separate
day and night, and to ‘be for signs, for seasons, for days and for
years. The days of creation (Genesis 1) and the ‘days of … years’
of the patriarchs (Genesis 5) cannot be understood
unless they run by the same clock. If the luminaries were for the above stated purpose,
then a fixed clock rate must be assumed from an earthly perspective in order to
be consistent with that explicit purpose. This clock has run at the same rate from
Creation to, through, and beyond the Flood until
today.1 It will continue
at this rate until the world ends. It is written in Genesis 8:22.
Anchored events
The Creation and Flood events are not without moorings in a vast and foggy sea involving
millions or billions of years. Genesis chapter 5 gives the Creation and Flood events
a definite external context of residence absolutely, progressively,
and relatively in a measured past consisting of days
and years—increments of the original (and present) astronomical clock.
More than description
Historicity is not merely that a recorded event happened out there sometime, somewhere,
somehow.
Historicity is not merely that a recorded event happened out there sometime,
somewhere, somehow. ‘When?, With what sequence of events?
and For how long?’ provide a context of evidences that insure credibility
and irrefutable authenticity. Chronology, therefore, is a big deal. Many of our
respected post-Darwin theologians, pastors, Bible teachers and professors did not
(and have not) picked up on this point, and so we have lost a great debate. We need
to reinstate this lost teaching in our fallen seminaries, and other places of higher
learning, that train and fill the pulpits of our churches and the chairs of our
colleges, universities and seminaries.
When the chronology of Genesis 5 is denied or compromised, everything
considered historical in the Bible can be doubted, so that ‘days’ can
somehow mean ‘ages’, ‘universal’ can somehow mean ‘limited’,
and language becomes ambiguous and thus depreciated whether outside or even inside
today’s evangelical Christian church!
When we read Genesis 1–11, we can hardly escape the chronological
content. The total chronology is important in showing us that the events are real;
that Genesis is history.
Related articles
Further reading
Recommended Resources
References
- This is not to imply that the length of the year might not
have changed slightly. There is some evidence that the year might have been 360
days before the Flood. Return to text.
| We support belief in an intelligent designer—the God of the Bible. This site was also ‘intelligently designed’. But rather than six days, it’s taken thousands of days. Help us design more information for this site.  | | |
|
