We will propose a framework for textual reconstruction and outline a chronology primarily based on the LXX’s begetting ages from Adam to Abraham. Proposing a comprehensive theory to explain the wholesale and deliberate alteration of the chronological texts. In a rare moment of unanimous agreement, there is actually a scholarly consensus that the begetting ages have been purposefully inflated or deflated to change the overall chronological calculations.There are two main hypotheses that have been presented in the academic literature: it was either the Alexandrian Jews who translated the LXX Pentateuch in Egypt in 281 BC (the LXX “inflation” hypothesis), or the second century AD rabbis in Israel.Vern Poythress, for allowing ABR to republish Jeremy’s article on the ABR website].In that article, Jeremy also presented arguments in favor of the LXX’s primeval chronology.We submit that only the rabbis could have gotten away with such an egregious and large-scale manipulation of the biblical texts in the proto-MT textual tradition.We will also examine the antediluvian chronology in the , its close affinities with Genesis 5 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and then propose how (many of) the figures in Genesis 5 SP originated. We will closely examine various LXX “inflation” hypotheses in Q1: [In your previous email] you mentioned “the case for the originality of the Septuagint’s primeval chronology”.During the Reformation, the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) supplanted the primacy of the LXX in the Western church, and thus, a chronological interpretation of Genesis 5 and 11 using the MT’s numbers became the majority viewpoint.
However, "Primeval Chronology Restored" and "Who Was Born When Enosh was 90?Most of these fallacies appear to have their origin in Green’s article from 1890, with a few modern innovations that collapse under the weight of scrutiny.will present extensive arguments from the biblical texts that Genesis 5 and 11 is intended to be interpreted (in part) as yielding a chronology from Adam to Abraham. Pastor Jeremy Sexton published an article in the Fall 2015 issue of which demonstrates the insurmountable semantic and exegetical problems with the non-chronological interpretation of Genesis 5 and 11.We encourage you to read "Primeval Chronology Restored" and "Who Was Born When Enosh was 90?" to understand why it cannot be the Alexandrian translators, and why the rabbis had strong motive, unique means, and rare opportunity to deliberately reduce the primeval chronology on the order of 1250 years.