Letters solar system impacts at the time of the Week rocks.’ Those of your readers ter (I offer this process as forming the Flood, but I have several objections to who have considered Precambrian ‘fountains of the great deep’), so in like that. First, it fails to account for the fossils will perhaps recall a proposal manner it was absorbing, not yielding, unique features of the moon. Second, by Wise, that microbiotas existed in sedimentary products. the crater density of heavily cratered the seas by early Day Three of Crea- When did the fossil-bearing sedi­ terrains, such as the lunar highlands, tion Week, thus explaining the fossils ment originate? I believe a third day suggests an extremely high impact of the Precambrian.2 Wise suggested interpretation is not acceptable scien­ rate. That high rate appears too cata- that the process of continental eleva- tifically, and is certainly biblically strophic to me to have merely caused tion led to deposition of Precambrian extravagant! the Flood. Such a titanic calamity sediments, which entrapped and buried should have taken precedent as the Precambrian fossils in what he calls the William Tompkins instrument of God’s judgment, rather ‘Day Three Regression’. (Re­gression, than the water that prevailed upon the as I understand, implies a return of the Toronto, Ontario earth. Third, a general mass of debris waters to a former state or location. If CANADA would be difficult to clear from the so, I hardly think it a suitable substi- solar system in a few thousand years. tute for ‘the gathering together of the 1. Froede Jr, C.R., Precambrian metazoans Wayne has suggested that an inter- waters’ 3 on the third day. Possibly he within a young-earth Flood framework, CEN stellar swarm of debris swept through meant recession.) Tech. J. 13(2):90–95, 1999. the solar system at that time. I concede The foregoing proposal, it would 2. Wise, K.P., Precambrian fossil record, CEN that this would answer this final objec- appear, rests on whether Precambrian Tech. J. 6(1):69, 1992. tion. However, that suggestion is not fossiliferous rocks are third day, or 3. Genesis 1:10b, KJV. as far removed from my suggested Flood sediments. 4. Hunter, M.J., Pre-Flood/Flood boundary in source, a comet swarm. The only In this vein of thought, it was stated the earth’s mantle? CEN Tech. J. 10(3):351, differences are that my comet stream by Max Hunter 4 that: 1996. would have directly affected only a ‘Oard89 [Hunter’s reference89 seems few bodies in the solar system and to be a nonentity] questions the leaves the possibility of a return visit need for geological activity on by the stream. Day 3, noting that the earth was This sort of speculation is only in in the process of being created So-called error in its infancy. It is a real pleasure to have “very good” (Genesis 1:9-13) such fine individuals as Wayne Spen- and that God could have raised Luke 3:36 cer involved in this. It is my desire that the dry land without erosion and my modest proposal act as a catalyst sediment­ation.’ I was surprised at the non-caution- to stir up the thinking and discussion I believe that Oard’s proposal ary approach taken by Larry Pierce of others. under examination is not without a with respect to the alleged error in healthy measure of sound reasoning, Luke 3:36 (i.e. that Cainan is a sup- Danny Faulkner and is complimentary to Froede’s quest posed addition in the genealogy Lancaster, South Carolina for a better understanding of the forces through copyist error).1 He states: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that historically formed the earth’s ‘The evidence from Josephus and sedimentary legacy. Bear with me in Gill shows conclusively that the my attempt to verify this claim. extra name Cainan is not part of Psalm 104:8 (‘mountains rose, and God’s original Word, but due to a valleys sank’, a third day Divine con- later copyist’s error.’ The third day struct), tells us that on the first day of Really? Was he there? His Creation, the submarine lithic surface reliance on extra-biblical sources to — Precambrian was as ‘void and without form’ (un- try to correct God’s Word reminds skeletons in the tenanted and featureless), as the water me of another dangerous trend in that composed its swaddling cover. the creation-evolution debate — that closet? From the moment of the all-prevail- of interpreting Genesis according ing command to gather together, the to extra-biblical ‘scientific’­ sources. I was somewhat taken with Carl transportation process, unhindered This trend is dangerous and contribu- Froede Jr’s paper on Precambrian by any vestige of flow impediment tory to the undermining of faith in the metazoans,1 in particular the state- was undoubtedly accomplished with veracity and surety of God’s Word. ment, ‘The presence of animal traces the barest degree of superficial lithic Even Dr Morris, whom Mr Pierce within these deeply buried strata turmoil. I have suggested in an unpub- cites, is far more cautionary in his ap- means that they cannot be Creation lished paper that the rising continents, proach to the supposed error. Never though frac­turing, were ingesting wa- does he say that the presence of Cainan CEN Technical Journal 14(1) 2000 49 Letters in the genealogy is conclusively an er- fati but neglects to note the cautionary ror. Preferring to allow the possibility nature of Sarfati’s explanation of the of his own error, he instead states the supposed error in Luke 3:36. Sar- following: fati gives a fictional account of how ‘Although the question is un­settled, a copyist might have inserted Cainan the weight of evidence does seem without stating that this was definitely to be in favour of the Hebrew text the case; ‘but suppose an earlier copy- as it stands …[the] insertion [of ist…’.6 Although I disagree with his Cainan] in Luke 3:36 is most likely conclusion that the Cainan inclusion a copyist’s error.’ 2 is an error, I must applaud his use of The words Morris uses — ‘un- cautionary language in his fictional settled’, ‘seem’ and ‘most likely’ — are supposition, perhaps something that all cautionary terms and show that Pierce has neglected to do. Larry Pierce replies: Morris approached the topic warily with respect to extra-biblical sources. Craig Savige If what Mr Savige has said is so, In light of ‘the foolishness of God is Geelong, Victoria then we have a greater mystery. It is obvious that the extra Cainan was wiser than men’ (1 Corinthians 1:25a), AUSTRALIA would it not be advisable to accept the not in copies of the Septuagint (LXX) that existed in about ad 100, otherwise Traditional Text reading of the Author- References ised Version for Luke 3:36? The ma- Josephus would have used it. And jority of all Greek manuscripts avail- 1. Pierce, L., Cainan in Luke 3:36: insight from further information comes from Julius able today have the name of Cainan as Josephus, Letters to the Editor, CEN Tech. J. Africanus, (c. ad 180–250), ‘the first being present in this verse.3 Nowhere 13(2):75–76, 1999. Christian historian known to have 1 in the genealogies­ presented in Gen- 2. Morris, H.M., The Genesis Record, Baker produced a universal chronology.’ In esis 11 or 1 Chronicles 1 does it state Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 282, his chronology (tabulated below), writ- 1976. that these are necessarily complete. ten in c. ad 220, he also omitted this 2 What if God in His wisdom chose to 3. ‘[T]he New Testament text first printed by mysterious Cainan. The numbers of Erasmus and later by Stephanus (1550) and years in his chronology (right column), reveal Cainan in Luke 3 for perhaps a Elzevir (1633) is in full agreement with the yet-to-be-determined reason? Also, Traditional Text providentially preserved in identical to those of the LXX (clearly the inclusion of Cainan does not give the vast majority of the Greek New Testament inflated from the reliable Masoretic 3,4 any ground for an old earth theology transcripts. This printed text is commonly Text ), show that he must have used called the Textus Receptus (Received Text). the LXX — but no Cainan even as late — all it shows (for those who believe It is the text which was used by the Protestant the reading to be correct) is that there Reformers during the Reformation and by all as ad 220! is at least one hole in the genealogies the Protestants everywhere for three hundred of Genesis and 1 Chronicles. years thereafter.’ Hills, E.F., The King James Adam to Noah 2262 Version Defended, The Christian Research Arphaxad begat Salah 135 It borders on the ludicrous when Press, Des Moines, Iowa, pp. 106–107, Dr John Gill states ‘for certain it is, 1984. Salah begat Eber 130 Eber begat Peleg 134 there never was such a Cainan’ whilst 4. Note on Luke 3:36, in: Gill, J., An Exposition acknowledging that the reading is ‘in of the Old and New Testament; the whole Peleg begat Rue 130 many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate illustrated with, taken from the most ancient Jewish writings (nine volumes), London: I think we have more than enough Latin, and all the Oriental versions, printed for Matthews and Leigh, 18 Strand, 4 evidence that would stand up in any even in the Syriac, the oldest of them.’ by W Clowes, Northumberland-Court, 1809: How can he state that Cainan never ex- Edited, revised and updated by Larry Pierce, court of law to show that every single isted without coming against the verac- 1994–1995 for Online Bible CD-ROM. copy we have of the LXX text was ity of these historical witnesses saying 5. ‘[W]e might even be suspicious of old manu- corrupted some time after ad 220. The differently? Perhaps he has bought scripts, especially if they contain many errors. copies of the LXX available to both This suggests they’d have been rejected as Josephus and Africanus did not include into the Westcott-Hort philosophy that master copies anyway.’ Taylor, C.V., Bibles the oldest manuscripts are the best with Holes? Assembly Kingswood Press, this spurious generation. It is also not without taking into account that these Underwood, Queensland, p. 35, 1988. in either the Samaritan Pentateuch or sources may have been corrupted and 6. Sarfati, J.D., Cainan of Luke 3:36, CEN Tech. the Hebrew manuscripts.­ remained unused (and thus less worn J. 12(1):39–40, 1998. All these predate the New Testa- out) because of their corruption.5 It ment Greek text. And while Josephus would be wiser to see Satan’s method was not a Christian writer and would for what it is: ‘Yea, hath God said…?’ not have been influenced by copies of (Genesis 3:1a). Luke genealogies, Julius Africanus Pierce also cites Dr Jonathan Sar- was a devout Christian. In his Epistle

50 CEN Technical Journal 14(1) 2000 Letters to Aristides ch. 3, he made an extensive ‘progressive creationist’ Hugh Ross.7 Larry Pierce study of the genealogies of both Luke Sarfati rebutted Ross’s assertion of Winterbourne, Ontario and Matthew. In fact he quotes Luke gaps in the genealogy, with strong CANADA 3:23.5 Hence, Africanus had copies of grammatical arguments that the Gen- both the Gospel of Luke and Matthew. esis genealogies are an unbroken References So one cannot claim that Africanus did sequence. Sarfati also re-stated that not know about Luke’s gospel or his he thought that the Cainan in extant 1. ‘Africanus, Sextus Julius’, The New Ency- genealogies. If the copies of Luke’s copies of Luke 3:36 was spurious, clopædia Britannica 1:136, 15th Ed. 1992. writings had this spurious Cainan, no and probably inserted after the time of 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers 6:131, Hendrickson, doubt Africanus would have amended Josephus — and even cited my letter Peabody, MA, 1994. his chronology to include it. in support. 3. For a defence of the Masoretic text vs the In fact, the earliest known extant Based on the evidence given in altered LXX, see Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary to a biblical chronology, CEN copy of Luke, the 102-page (originally my original letter plus this additional Tech. J. 12(1):98–106, 1998. 144) papyrus codex of the Bodmer Col- information, it is most likely that this 75 4. I have suggested elsewhere that the rabbis lection labelled P (dated between ad reading in Luke 3:36 is not original but who translated the LXX in Alexandria in the 6 175 and 225 ), omits the extra Cainan. a post- ad 220 interpolation. Given the 3rd century bc arbitrarily added about 700 Thus the reading in Luke 3:36 cannot unsettled state of Greek textual criti- years to the biblical chronology to make it agree with the exaggerated Egyptian chro- be shown to exist before ad 220. cism, I would not use the Greek text nology of the Egyptian priest Manetho (fl. c. Whether Cainan is an interpolation to contradict the Hebrew. If you wish 300 bc). See Pierce, L., In the days of Peleg, simply has no relation to the debate to use the reading in extant copies of Creation 22(1):46–49, 1999. between the Westcott/Hort (W/H) Luke to ‘prove’ gaps in the Hebrew 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers 6:126, Hendrickson, text vs the so-called Textus Receptus genealogies, you are on shaky ground. Peabody, MA, 1994. (TR) or Received Text. The W/H To prove me incorrect, all Craig has to 6. Geisler, N.L. and Nix, Wm. E., A General text also includes the Cainan in Luke do is produce an authentic manu­script Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, Chi- 3:36, because it is supported by the of Luke that contains this reading and cago, revised and expanded, pp. 390–391, 1986. 4th century Codices Sinaiticus and was written before ad 220. If he can, Vaticanus, which were written about I am wrong. If he cannot, the question 7. Sarfati, J.D., Genesis questioned by billions of years beliefs: A review of The Gen- a century after the interpolation likely remains open. esis Question by Hugh Ross, CEN Tech. J. occurred. Most people are unaware of the 13(2):22–30, 1999. John Gill certainly couldn’t have thousands of variations in the Greek 8. Robinson, M.A., Pierpont, Wm.G. and Mc- been influenced by the W/H theory manuscripts. They were not copied Brayer, Wm.D., The New Testament in the because he lived about a century with nearly the precision of the Hebrew Original Greek according to the Byzantine/ before! And Gill was prob­ably the text. Indeed between the published Majority Textform, Original Word Publishers, Atlanta, GA,1991. greatest Hebraist of the 18th century Greek New Testament by Stephanus and staunchly defended biblical iner- in 1550 and the text for the 1611 King rancy, and only very rarely pointed out James Version (as recon­structed by textual problems. Scrivener in 1884) there are about 250 Henry Morris is also well known variations. Between the Stephanus as a staunch defender of the KJV and text and the 1991 reconstruction­ of the TR. Finally, I myself am no fan of the (mainly Byzantine) Majority Text the W/H theory. by Dr Robinson et al.8 there are about So now that we have eliminated 1500 variations. ideas of W/H influence, we are still It is important to note that the TR left with the question: Where did this is based on very few manuscripts of reading then come from? Sarfati’s sug- the Byzantine family, and must not be gestion seems plausible, but of course confused with the Majority Text — a we shouldn’t be dogmatic about it. As distinction blurred in much KJV-only for the cautionary approach­ by Morris literature. (If you wish to include the and Sarfati, neither was aware of the Alexandrian text, then there are about evidence from Josephus, Africanus and 7500 variations. However, I am not an Gill, so their caution is warranted given admirer of the Alexandrian text.) the knowledge they had at the time. If you wish to bet the farm on the It is curious that Craig seems to accuracy of the current Greek text, have overlooked another article in where will you be in a few years when the same issue as my letter: Sarfati’s scholars amend it again? critique of a book by the outspoken

CEN Technical Journal 14(1) 2000 51