[Home page] [Site map] [Updates] [Projects] [Blog post]
This is an uncompleted project that I began years ago, originally on the ages of the antediluvians (lit. "before the flood) in Genesis 5:3-32. I have now expanded it to include the post-diluvian patriarchs in Genesis 11:10-32). So I have now changed the title (from "Genealogy of Genesis 5 ") to "The ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11" and added some headings and quotes which might be helpful to some.
"Hebrew genealogical tables are apt to differ in the principles of construction from modern registers of pedigree. 1. Symmetry is often preferred to the exhibition of the unbroken descent from father to son. Hence links were freely omitted, and the enumeration was otherwise left incomplete. Ten in the genealogy from Adam to Noah, and ten from Shem to Abraham. Seventy sons of Noah's sons, and seventy souls of the house of Jacob (Gen. xlvi. 27 ...). 2. The genealogy may be tribal, rather than personal; and son may denote the inhabitants of a country (Gen. x. 2-4, 6, 7, 22), a people or tribe (4, 13, 16-18 ...), a town (15), rarely an individual (8-10). Similar phenomena are found elsewhere (Gen. xxv. 2-4; 1 Chron. ii. 50-55 ...). The words bear and beget and father are used with a corresponding breadth of meaning; as bear or beget a grandchild (Gen. xlvi. 12 with 15, 18, 25), or great-grandchild (12, and probably 21, 22), or grandchild's grandchild (Mat. i. 9), or country (Gen. xxv. 2, 3)." (Davis J.D., "A Dictionary of the Bible," , Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, p.253)
"The general fact that the genealogies of Scripture were not constructed for a chronological purpose and lend themselves ill to employment as a basis for chronological calculations has been repeatedly shown very fully; but perhaps by no one more thoroughly than by Dr. William Henry Green in an illuminating article published in the Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1890. These genealogies must be esteemed trustworthy for the purposes for which they are recorded; but they cannot safely be pressed into use for other purposes for which they were not intended, and for which they are not adapted. In particular, it is clear that the genealogical purposes for which the genealogies were given, did not require a complete record of all the generations through which the descent of the persons to whom they are assigned runs; but only an adequate indication of the particular line through which the descent in question comes. Accordingly it is found on examination that the genealogies of Scripture are freely compressed for all sorts of purposes; and that it can seldom be confidently affirmed that they contain a complete record of the whole series of generations, while it is often obvious that a very large number are omitted. There is no reason inherent in the nature of the Scriptural genealogies why a genealogy of ten recorded links, as each of those in Genesis v. and xi. is, may not represent an actual descent of a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand links. The point established by the table is not that these are all the links which intervened between the beginning and the closing names, but that this is the line of descent through which one traces back to or down to the other." (Warfield B.B., "On the Antiquity and the Unity of The Human Race," in "Studies in Theology," , Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, 1988, reprint, pp.237-238) [to be completed] [top]
These two tables and figure are a graphical depiction of the genealogy of Genesis 5, assuming that the pre-Flood patriarchs were all in father-son relationships (which I don't personally claim-see for example Green W.H., "Primeval Chronology," Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1890, pp. 285-303):
================================================== Table 1: Age of Pre-Flood Patriarchs in Genesis 5 Age at ---------------- Birth of Name Son(a) Death Refs. ----- ------ ----- -------- Adam 130 930 Gn 5:3,5 Seth 105 912 Gn 5:6,8 Enosh 90 905 Gn 5:9,11 Kenan 70 910 Gn 5:12,14 Mahalalel 65 895 Gn 5:15,17 Jared 162 962 Gn 5:18,20 Enoch 65 365(b) Gn 5:21,23 Methuselah 187 969 Gn 5:25,27 Lamech 182 777 Gn 5:28,31 Noah 500 950 Gn 5:32; 9:29 Notes: (a) Assuming that the relationships are all father to son, which is doubtful (see for example Green W.H., "Primeval Chronology," Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1890, pp. 285-303). (b) Enoch did not die, but "God took him" (Gn 5:24). ================================================== ================================================== Table 2: Year(a) of Birth and Death(b) of Pre-Flood Patriarchs in Genesis 5. Year(a) --------------------------- Born Son(a) Died ---- ----- ---- Adam 0 130 930 Seth 130 235 1042 Enosh 235 325 1140 Kenan 325 395 1235 Mahalalel 395 460 1290 Jared 460 622 1422 Enoch 622 687 987 Methuselah 687 874 1656 Lamech 874 1056 1651 Noah 1056 1556 2006 Notes: (a) See note (a), Table 1 above. (b) See note (b), Table 1 above. ================================================== ================================================== Figure 1: Timeline of Year(a) of Birth and Death(b) of Pre-Flood Patriarchs in Genesis 5. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 |....|....|....|....|....| Adam xxxxxxxxxx Seth xxxxxxxxx Enosh xxxxxxxxxx Kenan xxxxxxxxxx Mahalalel xxxxxxxxxx Jared xxxxxxxxxxx Enoch xxxx Methuselah xxxxxxxxxx Lamech xxxxxxxx Noah xxxxxxxxxxx Notes: (a) See note (a), Table 1 above. (b) See note (b), Table 1 above. =============================================
"Additional Note on the long-lived antediluvians. Two problems of interpretation lie on the surface of this chapter: in simple terms, the period as a whole looks too short, and the individual life-spans too long, to harmonize with other data. ... a. The total period. Our present knowledge of civilization, e.g. at Jericho, goes back to at least 7000 BC, and of man himself very much further. When Ussher dated Adam at 4004 BC he assumed that the generations in this chapter were an unbroken chain: but the chapter neither adds its figures together nor gives the impression that the men it names overlapped each other's lives to any unusual extent (e.g. that Adam lived almost to the birth of Noah) . If it has selected ten names (and in 11:10ff. another ten from Noah to Abraham) as separate landmarks rather than continuous links, it has genealogical custom both within and without the Bible to support it. Within Scripture, note the stylized scheme of three fourteens in Matthew 1 (involving the omission of three successive kings in Mt. 1:8). Outside it, anthropologists and others have drawn attention to similar genealogical methods in the Sudan, Arabia, and elsewhere. On this understanding of the scheme, Seth, for example, produced at 105 either a forbear of Enosh or Enosh himself (cf. Mt. 1:8b, where Joram 'begat' his great-great-grandson); and so on. This leaves the total period undetermined. b. The life-spans. Reinterpretations of the longevity of these men are less happy. At first sight the fact that a name can mean both an individual and his tribe (cf. chapter 10) could account for some of the great ages if the first figure in the record (3,6, etc.) were taken to denote a man's personal life-span, while the second figure (4,7, etc.) gave that of the family he founded; 2 but Enoch and Noah are fatal exceptions, for they are clearly portrayed as individuals to the end. The idea that units of time may have changed their meaning is equally unfruitful: apart from creating fresh difficulties in 12, 15, 21, it breaks down in the detailed chronology between 7:6 and 8:13. As far as we can tell, then, the life- spans are intended literally. It may be worth pointing out that our familiar rate of growth is not the only conceivable one; also that various races have traditions of primitive longevity [The Sumerian king-list names eight or ten antediluvians, reigning on an average some thirty thousand years apiece. Some grain of truth could lie behind these vast numbers, as truth evidently lies behind the actual names ...] which could stem from authentic memories. See also on 12:14. But further study of the conventions of ancient genealogy writing may throw new light on the intention of the chapter." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1967, pp.82-83)
"The proposed longevity of the antediluvians or macrobians presents us with a problem in anthropology. These men lived up to 900 years, and they did not seem to have children till they were around 100 years old. Three interpretations have been suggested: A. Some have said that the time element needs reduction. Perhaps Moses used the Hebrew word year for some Babylonian word. For example we might take the English pound and equate it with the French franc as both being the unit of money of the two peoples, but to state francs as pounds and pounds as francs requires some method of reduction of pounds to francs. Babylonian records speak of men living 30,000 years! We would need a reduction factor of about one to ten to reduce 900 down to about 90. But such a reduction ratio has not been found which is satisfactory because it ends up with people having children when they are a year old! Until a feasible system of reduction can be found this method must be rejected. B. We may assert that these men actually lived 900 years or so, and assert that the flood made a radical difference in world conditions. A change in climate, a change in sunlight and moonlight, an increase in disease, have been suggested as cutting down man's life span. In general, expositors have felt that man coming right from the hand of the Creator was so free from disease that he could live much longer than contemporary man who is the heir of centuries of disease. There is nothing inherently impossible for man to have lived that long, but certainly something very unusual was at work if man did live that long. C. A third theory goes back to Bunsen's Bibelwerk (v. 49) in which Bunsen defends the interpretation that these years are cyclical. They deal with the epochs of the antediluvians, not their chronological ages. ... John Davis in his Bible dictionary and then in the ISBE [International Standard Bible Encyclopedia] ("Antediluvian Patriarchs," I, 139-143) defends this theory at length in the twentieth century. He feels that the names represent the patriarch and his family: The longevity is the period during which the family had prominence and leadership; the age at the son's birth is the date in the family history at which a new family originated and ultimately succeeded to the dominant position. This theory would relieve us of the problem of time reduction, and the problem of such a long span of life for man. One problem is figuring how Enoch fits into this interpretation for Gen. 5: 21-24 informs us that Enoch walked with God for three hundred years after the birth of Methuselah. Was a whole tribe taken? Or, are we to make a sharp distinction here between Enoch the man and Enoch the tribe? Certainly Hebrews 11:5 treats Enoch as a man. Perhaps this objection is not as formidable as it first appears, but it needs some further treatment to fit into Davis' theory which we think is perhaps the most satisfactory of the three differed." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture,"  Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, pp.236-237)
"Antediluvians ... 1. Chronology Uncertain: According to the ordinary interpretation of the genealogical tables in Gen. 5 the lives of the antediluvians were prolonged to an extreme old age, Methuselah attaining that of 969 years. But before accepting these figures as a basis of interpretation it is important to observe that the Hebrew, the Samaritan and the Septuagint texts differ so radically in their sums that probably little confidence can be placed in any of them. The Septuagint adds 100 years to the age of six of the antediluvian patriarchs at the birth of their eldest sons. This, taken with the great uncertainty connected with the transmission of numbers by the Hebrew method of notation, makes it unwise to base important conclusions upon the data accessible. The most probable interpretation of the genealogical table in Gen. 5 is that given by the late Professor William Henry Green, who maintains that it is not intended to give chronology, and does not give it, but only indicates the line of descent, as where (1 Chronicles 26:24) we read that `Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasures'; whereas, while Gershom was the immediate son of Moses, Shebuel was separated from Gershom by several generations. According to the interpretation of Professor Green all that we can certainly infer from the statement in Hebrew that Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth, is that at that age the line branched off which culminated in Seth, it being permitted, according to Hebrew usage, to interpolate as many intermediate generations as other evidence may compel. 2. Meaning of Genealogies: As in the genealogies of Christ in the Gospels, the object of the tables in Genesis is evidently not to give chronology, but the line of descent. This conclusion is supported by the fact that no use is made afterward of the chronology, whereas the line of descent is repeatedly emphasized. This method of interpretation allows all the elasticity to prehistoric chronology that any archaeologist may require. Some will get further relief from the apparent incredibility of the figures by the Interpretation of Professor A. Winchell, and T. P. Crawford (Winchell, Pre-adamites, 449 ff.) that the first number gives the age of actual life of the individual while the second gives that of the ascendancy of his family, the name being that of dynasties, like Caesar or Pharaoh." (Wright G.F., "Antediluvians," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.)
"The long life spans have been a continual curiosity among Bible readers. But if these numbers sound incredible, the years attributed to the antediluvian Mesopotamian kings make Methuselah seem but an infant. In the Sumerian king list the shortest reign is 18,600 years, while the longest stretches 43,200. Eight kings compile 241,200 years between them. This text uses the standard Sumerian sexagesimal system. If the notation is read with decimal values rather than sexagesimal values, the numbers are in the same range as the Biblical numbers, and the totals of the lists are nearly identical. Have the numbers been misrepresented or misunderstood? Are they symbolic? Did the antediluvians simply live longer? There have been many attempts to account for the numbers through mathematical gymnastics, but none of the proposals has been able to provide a solution that encompasses all of the data. It is impossible to understand the numbers in terms of some thing other than base ten, both because base ten is the norm for Semitic civilizations (except Sumerian-based Akkadian) as far back as records are available, and because any other system results in men fathering children at age six or seven years old. The latter consequence also makes it impossible that a "year" represents a cycle of the moon rather than a cycle of the sun. If, then, we accept the biblical account at face value, there are reasons one might expect long lives in the shadow of Eden. Whether one would speculate that the long lives testify to the gradual penetration of sin (and death) or to the enduring effect of Adam and Eve's temporary (pre-Fall) diet from the tree of life, the accuracy of these numbers can be defended. Those who are more inclined to take them as symbolic must provide an explanation of how the numbers are operating on the symbolic level and how genealogies were understood by the biblical authors that allow us to consider a symbolic view as representing the face value of the text." (Walton J.H., "Genesis," The NIV Application Commentary, Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2001, pp.281-282)
""Genesis 5. The problem of the long lives of people before the flood is obvious: Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5); Methuselah lived 969 years (Gen. 5:27), and the average age of those who lived out their normal lifespan was over 900 years old. Yet even the Bible recognizes what scientific fact shows, namely, that most people live only seventy or eighty years before natural death (Ps. 90:10). It is a fact that people do not live that long today. But this is merely a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. No scientist has shown that it is impossible for someone to live that long. In fact, biologically there is no reason humans could not live hundreds of years. Scientists are more baffled by aging and death than by longevity. Second, the reference in Psalm 90 is to Moses' time (1400s B.C.) and later, when longevity had decreased to seventy or eighty years for most, though Moses himself lived 120 years (Deut. 34:7). Third, some have suggested that these `years' are really only months, which would reduce nine hundred years to the normal life span of eighty years. However, this is implausible. There is no precedent in the Hebrew Old Testament for taking the word year to mean `month.' And Mahalalel had children when he was `only' sixty-five (Gen. 5:15), and Cainan had children when he was seventy (Gen. 5:12); this would mean they were less than six years old- which is not biologically possible. Fourth, others suggest that these names represent family lines or clans that went on for generations before they died out. However, this does not make sense. For one thing, some of these names (e.g., Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah) are definitely individuals whose lives are narrated in the text (Gen. 1-9). For another, family lines do not `beget' family lines by different names. Neither do family lines `die,' as each of these individuals did (cf. 5:5, 8, 11). Furthermore, the reference to having `sons and daughters' (5:4) does not fit the clan theory. Fifth, it seems best to take these as years (though they were lunar years of 12 x 30 = 360 days). The Bible is not alone in speaking of hundreds of years life spans among ancients. There are also Greek and Egyptian records of humans living hundreds of years. ... Genesis 5, 11. Critics claim that the Bible makes a scientific error when it dates humankind around 4000 B.C. But the Bible nowhere gives any such total of years. In fact, there are demonstrable gaps in the biblical genealogies. Hence, it is impossible to obtain a total of years from Adam to Abraham. The Bible has accurate outline genealogies in which there are demonstrable gaps (see GENEALOGIES, OPEN OR CLOSED). Genesis 6-9. "(Geisler N.L., "Science and the Bible," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.695) [to be completed] [top]
"If the strict-chronology interpretation of Genesis 11 is correct, all the postdiluvian patriarchs, including Noah, would still have been living when Abram was fifty years old; three of those who were born before the earth was divided (Shem, Shelah, and Eber) would have actually outlived Abram; and Eber, the father of Peleg, not only would have outlived Abram, but would have lived for two years after Jacob arrived in Mesopotamia to work for Laban! On the face of it, such a situation would seem astonishing, if not almost incredible. And the case is further strengthened by the clear and twice-repeated statement of Joshua that Abram's "fathers," including Terah, were idolaters when they dwelt "of old time beyond the River" (Joshua 24:2,14,15). If all the postdiluvian patriarchs including Noah and Shem, were still living in Abram's day, this statement implies that they had all fallen into idolatry by then. This conclusion is surely wrong, and therefore the premise on which it is based must be wrong. Consequently, it seems that the strict-chronology view must be set aside in order to allow for the death of these patriarchs long before the time of Abram." (Whitcomb J.C. & Morris H.M., "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications," , Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1993, Thirty-sixth Printing, pp.477-478) [to be completed] [top]
Genesis 5 & 11
"Genealogies, Open or Closed. From an apologetic standpoint, the problem of `open' or `closed' genealogies is this: If they are open (have gaps), then why do they appear closed, especially in Genesis 5 and 11 where exact ages at which the children were born are mentioned? If they are closed, then the creation of mankind is placed somewhere around 4000 B.C., which flies in the face of all the historical and scientific evidence for a minimum date for humanity (see GENESIS, DAYS OF). Since they must be either open or closed, there is an apologetic problem either way with regard to the authenticity of the Genesis record. ... According to the closed chronology view, there are no gaps in the list in Genesis 5 and 11. They are both complete and provide all the numbers necessary for determining the age of the human race. Arguments. In favor of the closed chronology view, different arguments have been offered. The strongest is the prima facie argument. The genealogies appear to be closed. For not only is the age given at which the son is born, and his son, and so on, but the total age of the father after he had the son is given. For example, the text says, `When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son ... and he named him Seth.... Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enos ...' (Gen. 5:3-6). This wording appears to leave no room for gaps. With one exception, no lists in the Bible supply missing links in this genealogy. There are only two other lists of this early period covered by Genesis 5 and 11 and both have the same names in them ... 1 Chronicles 1:1-28 ... Luke 3:34-38 ... The one exception is Cainan (in the Luke 3 list). Otherwise, disregarding the alternate spelling of Salah/Shelah and Abram's changed name to Abraham, the lists are identical and reveal no gaps. The same names appear in both, with no missing generations apparent. ... The attempt to explain away Luke 3:36 as no gap seems highly implausible. There is no real manuscript authority for omitting Cainan from Luke 3:36. That sequence is in all major, and virtually all minor, manuscripts. There is absolutely no indication in the text that Cainan should be listed as a brother of Salah. The grammatical construction is the same for all the other names in the list who were sons. Although the Greek reads `of' or `from' without the word son, the translators rightly supply son since it is what is implied in every other case in the list. Making this one an exception, when it has the same construction, is begging the question. There is no precedent in any of the genealogical lists for listing Cainan as anything but the father of Salah. The only other explanation is that both Genesis 11 and 1 Chronicles are outlines that hit the significant points in the family tree. They have at least one known gap in their genealogies. Other known gaps. The genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1 has at least one serious known gap, even though the text reads that Jehoram was the father of Uzziah (vs. 8), it is known from 1 Chronicles 3 that three missing generations separate Joram and Uzziah: Matthew 1:8 ... 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 ... Now since there are known gaps in the genealogies, even from a strictly biblical point of view the genealogies cannot be considered closed. Scientific and historical evidence. Even if one takes the most conservative interpretation of what constitutes a human remain of `modern man,' the evidence is still strong that there were human beings around well before 4000 B.C. Peoples appear to have wandered North America since 10,000 B.C. Even if all fossil finds before Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal peoples were not human, there are numerous complete skeletons of these groups dated before 10,000 B.C. Even if one discounts all prehistoric precivilization fossils and speaks only of `civilized' humankind, the time extends several thousand years earlier than 4000 B.C. There was a civilization in Egypt well before this time. Scientific and historical evidence would seem to rule out a closed genealogy.' ... Open genealogies are a better solution to the problem. ... In another example, a comparison of 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 with Ezra 7:2 reveals that Ezra omits six generations between Seraiah and Ezra: ..." (Geisler N.L., "Genealogies, Open or Closed," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.267-268)
"There is at least one generation missing even in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogy which appears to be closed. This demonstrates that whatever the text seems to say, chronology must be interpreted through an open genealogy. If there are no gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, implausible examples emerge. For by adding up the numbers one can determine the following dates of birth and death A.A. (after Adam's creation): ... First, Adam, the first man (see ADAM, HISTORICITY OF), would have been a contemporary of Noah's father. For Adam died in the year 930 A.A. (after Adam's creation). Lamech, Noah's father, was born in 874 A.A. This means they were contemporaries for fifty-six years. Likewise, Abraham only missed being a contemporary of Noah by two years. But there is no indication that this is the case. It is more implausible to assume that Nahor, the grandfather of Abraham, died before his great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather Noah. For Noah died 2006 A.A. and Nahor died in 1997 A.A. Isaac would have been born fifty years before Noah's son Shem died." (Geisler N.L., "Genealogies, Open or Closed," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.268-269. Emphasis in original) [to be completed] [top]
"Nowhere does the Bible even suggest a summation of the numbers listed in Genesis 5 and 11. No chronological statement is deduced from these numbers either in Genesis 5 and 11 or anywhere else in Scripture. There is no total given anywhere in the biblical text of the time that elapsed between creation and Abraham, as there is for the time in Egypt (Exod. 12:40) and the time from the Exodus to Solomon (1 Kings 6:1). The symmetry of the text argues against it being complete. Scholars have noted that their symmetrical arrangement of Genesis 5 and 11 into groups of ten argues for their compression. Noah is the tenth name from Adam and Terah the tenth from Noah. Each ends with a father who had three sons. This is certainly the case in Matthew 1 where there are three series of fourteen (double-seven, the number of completeness and perfection), for we know three generations are left out in Matthew 1:8 (cf. 1 Chron. 3:11-12). ... Of objections to the open genealogy view not yet discussed, the most important one is based on the alleged implausible interpretation of the language of Genesis 5 and 11. It is objected that not only does it seem stretched to find gaps in Genesis 5 or 11, given the language of the text, but it seems like isogesis (reading into the text) rather than exegesis (reading out of the text). After all, the name of the father and son are given as well as their age when they had this son who became the father of the next son at a certain age. Listing the father's age at the time of the son's birth is without meaning unless he is the immediate son, and there are no gaps. In response, some important matters must be kept in mind. First, the Bible comes out of another culture and linguistic setting. Metaphorical imagery can mislead the reader into thinking the Bible is saying something, when it means something different. In Hebrew, as in English, one can speak of the four `corners' of the earth (Isa. 41:9; cf. Ezek. 7:2). Is the Bible saying that the world is square? Some critics say so. Yet the earth is also described as a circle or globe (Isa. 40:22). Is it possible that corners is metaphorical language that may mean the geography covered by the four `quarters' of the compass, just as it means when we say it? Second, as noted in the implausible dates above, even within the Bible there is strong evidence of gaps in the genealogies. Third, there are ways to understand the text of Genesis 11 that do allow for gaps. The formula phrase `and X lived so many years and begat Y' can mean `and X lived so many years and became the ancestor of Y' This is not speculation, for in Matthew 1:8 ('Jehoram begat Uzziah') it means precisely this. `Begat' must mean `became the ancestor of,' since 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 fills in three missing generations between Jehoram and Uzziah. This would not have been an oversight by Matthew, for the genealogy of the line of David was known by every Jewish man. ... The evidence supports the view that the Bible does not give us in Genesis 5 and 11 a closed chronology but an outline genealogy. This is supported by both internal biblical evidence of missing generation(s), even in Genesis 11, but also by external evidence that humankind dates to long before 4000 B.C. This being the case, there is no real conflict on this matter between the Bible and science nor between the Bible and itself. Open genealogy provides an accurate line of descent for lineage purposes, but it does not satisfy our curiosity about the date of human creation." (Geisler N.L., "Genealogies, Open or Closed," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.269-270) [to be completed] [top]
Copyright © 2002-2005, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This
page and its contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 18 October, 2002. Updated: 23 August, 2005.