Entry Into Egypt

Culled from: The Skeptical Review Online

In Part One of this series, I explicated a chronological discrepancy concerning how much time passed for Joseph from his betrayal by his brothers (Gen. 37:2) till his reunion with them (Gen. 45:6) as opposed to how much time had passed for his brother Judah (Gen. 38:1-39) during the same interval. That discrepancy raised the question of how many children of Israel actually went into Egypt with the extended family of Jacob [Israel]. Genesis 46:26-27 says that 70 went into Egypt.

26 All the persons belonging to Jacob who came into Egypt, who were his own offspring, not including the wives of his sons, were sixty-six persons in all. 27 The children of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two; all the persons of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy.

Acts 7:14, however, in a speech that Stephen made before the the Sanhedrin court, said that 75 had entered Egypt.

13 On the second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph's family became known to Pharaoh. 14 Then Joseph sent and invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come to him, seventy-five in all; 15 so Jacob went down to Egypt. He himself died there as well as our ancestors....

This variation in the two texts just quoted became a focal point in discussions that the former Church-of-Christ members mentioned in Part One of this series have had with the elders of the congregation that they once attended. The elders, of course, have contended that there is no discrepancy in the two passages. In this article, I will examine their "solution" to the problem and show that this variation does indeed create serious doubts about their claim that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant "word of God" and certainly refutes their claim that the Bible is a marvelous work of unity and harmony. First, however, I want to show that the list of names in Genesis 46 presents more than just one problem that inerrantists must explain. I have already shown in Part One that there is a chronological problem in the inclusion of Judah's grandsons Hezron and Hamul in the list of those who went into Egypt with Jacob [Israel], so if I can show other problems in this list that can be "explained" only by resorting to far-fetched, unlikely, how-it-could-have-been scenarios, that should convince reasonable people that the fundamentalist claim of biblical inerrancy is too tenuous to be believed.

Another problem in this list concerns the naming of Jacob's sons and grandsons who had descended through his wife Leah. That problem concerns how many were in this group.Verse 15 says that there were 33, but a count of the names will show that there were only 32. In quoting the passage where they were listed, I will number them as they are named. The verses in this passage number 8 through 15, so I will substitute A through H in parentheses for the verse numbers so that they will not be confused with the numbering of the names in the list, which will be indicated in brackets. Er and Onan, in verse 12 (E) will not be counted, because they had died in Canaan, as the verse notes, before the Israelites went into Egypt.

(A) Now these are the names of the Israelites, Jacob and his offspring, who came to Egypt. [1] Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, (B) and the children of Reuben: [2] Hanoch, [3] Pallu, [4] Hezron, and [5] Carmi. (C) The children of [6] Simeon: [7] Jemuel, [8] Jamin, [9] Ohad, [10] Jachin, [11] Zohar, and [12] Shaul, the son of a Canaanite woman. (D) The children of [13] Levi: [14] Gershon, [15] Kohath, and [16] Merari. (E) The children of [17] Judah: Er, Onan, [18] Shelah, [19] Perez, and [20] Zerah (but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan); and the children of Perez [already counted as number 19] were [21] Hezron and [22] Hamul. (F) The children of [23] Issachar: [24] Tola, [25] Puvah, [26] Jashub, and [27] Shimron. (G) The children of [28] Zebulun: [29] Sered, [30] Elon, and [31] Jahleel (H) (these are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan-aram, together with his daughter [32] Dinah; in all his sons and his daughters numbered thirty-three).

As anyone who takes the time to examine this passage can see, there were 34 different names in the listing of Leah's descendants, but Er and Onan must be subtracted, because, as already noted, they had previously died in Canaan before the others went into Egypt. When these two are subtracted from 34, only thirty-two are left, but the presumably "inspired" writer said that there were 33 in this group.

Biblical inerrantists, of course, have tried to explain this numerical discrepancy. They have alternately argued that Jacob is named in this section, so he should be counted; others have argued that Leah should be counted. There is a serious problem in either solution, because, as anyone can see by reading it again, verse 15 (labeled H above), clearly said that these are thesons of Leah, who "together with [her] daughter Dinah" numbered thirty-three. Jacob was not a son of Leah, and he certainly wasn't a daughter of Leah. Furthermore, the last verse in this passage plainly says, "(I)n all his [Jacob's] sons and his daughters numbered thirty-three." Jacob was not his own son, and, likewise, Leah was not a daughter of herself. The verse plainly says that the sons and daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan-aram, numbered thirty-three, but as anyone can see by counting them, there were only thirty-two in the list.

Another problem with counting Jacob to solve this numerical problem is that the other group lists of his sons and daughters who descended through Zilpah, Rachel, and Bilhah conform exactly to the counts claimed. Verses 16 through 18 listed the sons, grandsons, and granddaughter of Zilpah and concluded that there were sixteen in this group. A count of the names shows that, just as verse 18 claimed, there were sixteen in this group. To verify this, one has only to count them: (1) Gad, (2) Ziphion, (3) Haggi, (4) Shuni, (5) Ezbon, (6) Eri, (7) Arodi, (8) Areli, (9) Asher, (10) Imnah, (11) Ishvah, (12) Ishvi, (13) Beriah, (14) Serah, (15) Heber, and (16) Malchiel. If Jacob is to be counted in Leah's group, analyzed above, why should he not be counted in Zilpah's group too? If Leah is to be counted in her group inORDER

to get a number that agrees with the claim that there were 33 in this group, then why shouldn't Zilpah be counted with her group? The answer is simple. A count of the names in Zilpah's group conforms to the number claimed, so biblicists see no need to twist the passage to try to make it not mean what it plainly says. Biblical inerrantists resort to verbal gymnastics to try to make the Bible not mean what it says only when there is a discrepancy to "explain."

Likewise, verses 19-22 listed Rachel's sons and grandsons and said that there were fourteen in this group. A count of all the names listed will show that they numbered fourteen. Bilhah's sons and grandsons were listed in verses 13-25, and they numbered seven, exactly what verse 25 claimed. If Jacob or Leah should be counted in order to remove the discrepancy in Leah's list of descendants, then consistency would demand that either Jacob or Rachel or Bilhah be counted with the last two lists. In other words, the inerrantist "solution" to the numerical discrepancy in the count of Leah's descendants is no "solution" at all. Their "solution" is as inconsistent as the claim that there were thirty-three in the list of Leah's descendants.

Some inerrantists, recognizing the inconsistency in claiming that Jacob or Leah should be counted in Leah's group but that Jacob or the other mothers should not be counted in the three remaining groups, resort to the old inerrantist standby: the original "autograph" listed a thirty-third name in Leah's group, but this name became lost through copyist error. Needless to say, this "solution" cannot be defended without having access to the original autograph to verify that there was indeed a thirty-third name in this group, and everyone knows that the original was lost long ago. We can, however, point out that the constant resort that inerrantists make to "copyist mistake" casts serious doubt on a claim that they frequently make about the reliability of the biblical text. They argue that the reliability of the Bible can be trusted because ancient scribes were so diligent in their work that they would count the letters in their copies to make sure that the copies conformed exactly to the texts they had copied from. They will say this with a straight face and then turn around and try to explain textual inconsistencies by pleading "scribal error." Biblical inerrantists--they would be comical if they weren't so serious.

Another problem in the Genesis-46 list of Israelites who went into Jacob concerns the number of descendants in the list that were attributed to Benjamin, Jacob's last son whom Rachel gave birth to when the family was returning to Canaan after Jacob's sojourn in Paddanaram.

Genesis 46:19 The children of Jacob's wife Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. 20 To Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him. 21 The children of Benjamin: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard 22 (these are the children of Rachel, who were born to Jacob--fourteen persons in all).

There are 10 descendants of Benjamin listed here, and it would certainly have been possible for Benjamin, who would been about 32 at the time, to have had 10 sons, but if a genealogy of Benjamin in Numnbers 26 is historically accurate, not all of these 10 were Benjamin's immediate sons; some were grandsons and possibly even great-grandsons. As we will see, that does create a problem somewhat like the listing of Hezron and Hamul as grandsons of Judah.

Numbers 26:38 The descendants of Benjamin by their clans: of Bela, the clan of the Belaites; of Ashbel, the clan of the Ashbelites; of Ahiram, the clan of the Ahiramites; 39 of Shephupham, the clan of the Shuphamites; of Hupham, the clan of the Huphamites. 40 And the sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman: of Ard, the clan of the Ardites; of Naaman, the clan of the Naamites. 41 These are the descendants of Benjamin by their clans; the number of those enrolled was forty-five thousand six hundred.

As one can immediately see, this genealogy in Numbers differs substantially from the one in Genesis 46. Inerrantists have tried to explain the variations in different ways. They claim that there are fewer names here than in Genesis 46:19-21 because some of Benjamin's "sons" died without having established clans, and they claim that where the names are different is just an example of the same persons having different names. These differences, however, are unimportant at this point, because I want readers to notice that according to this genealogy, some of the names listed in Genesis 46 were not actual sons of Benjamin but were grandsons. Ard and Naaman, for example, were listed in the Genesis-46 genealogy as "sons" of Benjamin, but the one in Numbers 26 identified them as "sons of Bela," which would have made them grandsons of Benjamin. Benjamin's genealogy in 1 Chronicles 8 complicates this problem even further.

8:1 Benjamin became the father of Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, 2 Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth. 3 And Bela had sons: Addar,Gera, Abihud, 4 Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, 5 Gera, Shephuphan, and Huram.

This genealogy of Benjamin differs from both the one in Genesis and the one in Numbers, but, again, I don't intend to discuss the differences in the names. I want to point out only that it does agree with Numbers that Naaman was the son of Bela, which would have made him Benjamin's grandson rather than his son. It also says that Gera (listed in Genesis 46:21 as a son of Benjamin) was really the son of Bela or, in other words, the grandson of Benjamin. The Septuagint version of Genesis 46:21 even claims that Gera was the father of Arad (listed in the Masoretic version as just a "son" of Benjamin).

And the sons of Benjamin: Bala, and Bocher, and Asbel. And the sons of Bala were Gera, and Noeman, and Anchis, and Ros, and Mamphim. And Gera begot Arad.

According to the Septuagint version, Benjamin had only three sons at this time: Bala [Bela], Bocher [Becher], and Asbel [Ashbel]. The others were grandsons, except for Arad, who was a great-grandson, so if the Septuagint version that the previously mentioned church elders have appealed to, corroborated in part by other versions of Benjamin's genealogy, is correct, that would create another problem like the inclusion of Hezron and Hamul in the list of those who went into Egypt with Jacob. Benjamin could have easily had three sons at that time, but it would have been chronologically improbable that he would have also had several grandsons and one great-grandson. Hence, the problem with Benjamin's part of the Genesis-46 list is the same as it was with Judah's grandsons Hezron and Hamul, who were discussed in Part One of this series. Even if Benjamin had had had a harem of wives, it would have been very unlikely that he could have produced grandchildren and a great-grandson by the time that Jacob took his family into Egypt. Biblical inerrantists themselves have recognized this problem, so a simple way to present the chronological difficulties involved in it is to quote from an attempt that Eric Lyons, a Church-of-Christ "apologist," made to solve it.

If Joseph was thirty-nine at the time of this migration (cf. 41:46), one can figure (roughly) the age of Benjamin byCALCULATING

the amount of time that passed between their births. It was after Joseph’s birth that his father, Jacob, worked his final six years for Laban in Padan Aram (30:25; 31:38,41). We know that Benjamin was more than six years younger than Joseph, because he was not born until sometime after Jacob discontinued working for Laban. In fact, Benjamin was not born until after Jacob: (1) departed Padan Aram (31:18); (2) crossed over the river (Euphrates—31:21); (3) met with his brother, Esau, near Penuel (32:22,31; 33:2); (4) built a house in Succoth (33:17); (5) pitched his tent in Shechem (33:18); and (6) built an altar to God at Bethel (35:1-19). Obviously, a considerable amount of time passed between Jacob’s separation from Laban in Padan Aram, and the birth of Benjamin near Bethlehem {"Jacob's Journey to Egypt," Apologetics Press).

Lyons' chronology is basically correct, except that Genesis 41:46 considered alone would not prove that Joseph was 39 at the time of Jacob's descent into Egypt. This verse says only that Joseph was 30 years old when he "stood before Pharaoh." If, however, one considers with this verse Genesis 45:6, which establishes that all seven years of plenty and two years of famine had passed when Joseph was reunited with his brothers, the two texts together would show that Lyons was correct when he said that Joseph was around 39 (30 + 7 + 2 = 39) at the time of the Israelite "migration" into Egypt. I would disagree with Lyons only in that it would have taken time for Joseph's brothers to return to Canaan and then bring their families back to Egypt. If we assume that this would have required a year, that would mean that Joseph was 40 at the time of Jacob's descent into Egypt.

Genesis 47:8-9 claims that Jacob was 130 when Joseph presented him to Pharaoh, so this would mean that, as unlikely as that would have been, Jacob was 90 years old when Joseph was born (130 - 40 = 90). As Lyons correctly showed, Benjamin had to have been considerably more than six years younger than Joseph. Even if we assume that Jacob had been able to do everything that Lyons noted above in only two years, that would mean that Benjamin was eight years younger than Joseph. Hence, Benjamin would have been only 32 years old at the time of the Israelite "migration" into Egypt. Hence, Benjamin, the youngest, by far, of Jacob's 12 sons, had produced more descendants at the time of the descent into Egypt than any of his brothers. It certainly isn't impossible that a 32-year-old man could have had 10 sons at that age, especially if he had had, as some inerrantists quibble, more than one wife, but as we have seen above, if the Bible is indeed inerrant, some of those listed as "sons of Benjamin" were his grandsons and probably even his great-grandsons. It is unlikely that a man 32 years old at the time could have had descendants as distant as this. Even Lyons recognized that the list of Benjamin's sons in Genesis 46:21 is problematic at best. The paragraph that I quoted above from Lyons' article began with this sentence:"A second indication that all 'seventy' were likely not born before Jacob’s family migrated to Egypt is that ten 'sons' (descendants) of Benjamin are listed (46:21)." That is a clear recognition of serious problems in the Genesis-46 list.

It also brings us back to the in-lumbis-patrum "explanation" of discrepancies in this list of names. In Part One of this series, I quoted Michael Hatcher's attempt to solve the Hezron-Hamul problem by claiming that these grandsons of Judah had not actually been born at the time of Jacob's descent into Egypt but that they had gone into Egypt in lumbis patrum or "in the loins of their father." In the article quoted above, Eric Lyons resorted to the same quibble.

But how is it that ten of Benjamin’s descendants, along with Hezron and Hamul, legitimately could appear in a list with those who traveled to Egypt, when all indications are that at least some were yet to be born? Answer: Because some of the names are brought in by prolepsis (or anticipation). Although they might not have been born by the time Jacob left for Egypt, they were in his loins—they “came from his body” (Genesis 46:26). Renowned Old Testament commentators Keil and Delitzsch stated: “From all this it necessarily follows, that in the list before us grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob are named who were born afterwards in Egypt, and who, therefore, according to a view which we frequently meet with in the Old Testament, though strange to our modes of thought, came into Egypt in lumbis patrum” (1996).

This quibble dates back to the attempts of the 19-century German apologists Kurtz and Hengstenberg to resolve it after John William Colenso, the Anglican bishop to Natal, had delineated the Hezron-Hamul discrepancy in his three-volume work The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined. When he encountered their quibble, Colenso sensibly asked why the Genesis writer would have included some as yet unborn grandsons of Jacob but "not also the great-great grandsons, and so on ad infinitum (volume 1, p. 23). Further along, in reply to Kurtz's claim that the view,"which sees in the father the ensemble of his descendants, is common to the whole of the Old Testament," Colenso pointed out the same problem just noted above.

But why does the Sacred Writer draw any contrast between the "three-score and ten persons,' who went down to Egypt, and the "multitude, as the stars of heaven," who came out, since these last, as well as the former, were all in the loins of their father Jacob?

Professional apologists have rarely been caught without an "explanation" of whatever biblical discrepancies are presented to them, so they have a reply to Colenso's question. They argue that Hezron and Hamul and the grandsons of Benjamin became the heads of "families" after the Israelites were in Egypt, and so the Genesis writer proleptically included them in the list of Israelites who went into Egypt, even though some of them, at least, were still "in the loins" of their fathers. Eric Lyons appropriated this quibble in his article quoted above.

While all seventy mentioned in Genesis 46 may not have literally traveled down to Egypt, Moses, writing this account more than 215 years later (see Bass, et. al., 2001), easily could have used a figure of speech known as prolepsis to include those who would be born shortly thereafter, and who eventually (by the time of Moses) would have been “the recognized heads of families.”

There is a major flaw in this quibble. In the time of Moses, there were recognized heads of families who had not been included in the Genesis-46 list. A census of the Israelites was done in Numbers 26 before they crossed into Canaan, and a juxtaposition of the families descended from Joseph with the listing of his descendants in Genesis 46 shows that several "recognized heads of families" were not listed among the seventy who went into Egypt.

Genesis 46:19 The children of Jacob's wife Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. 20 To Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him.

Numbers 26:28 The sons of Joseph by their clans: Manasseh and Ephraim. 29 The descendants of Manasseh: of Machir, the clan of the Machirites; and Machir was the father of Gilead; of Gilead, the clan of the Gileadites. 30 These are the descendants of Gilead: of Iezer, the clan of the Iezerites; of Helek, the clan of the Helekites; 31 and of Asriel, the clan of the Asrielites; and of Shechem, the clan of the Shechemites; 32 and of Shemida, the clan of the Shemidaites; and of Hepher,the clan of the Hepherites. 33 Now Zelophehad son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 34 These are the clans of Manasseh; the number of those enrolled was fifty-two thousand seven hundred. 35 These are the descendants of Ephraim according to their clans: of Shuthelah, the clan of the Shuthelahites;of Becher, the clan of the Becherites; of Tahan, the clan of the Tahanites. 36 And these are the descendants of Shuthelah: of Eran, the clan of the Eranites. 37 These are the clans of the Ephraimites: the number of those enrolled was thirty-two thousand five hundred. These are the descendants of Joseph by their clans.

As this census record clearly shows, Machir, Gilead, Iezer, Helek, Asriel, Schechem, Shemida, Hepher, Shuthelah, Becher, Tahan, and Eran--12 descendants of Joseph, who were "recognized heads of families" or clans in the time of Moses--were not listed in Genesis 46, so if the intention of the Genesis writer was to list all of those who later became recognized heads of families, why did he not include the 12 descendants of Joseph identified in Numbers 26 as heads of families? In his "explanation" of the Hezron-Hamul discrepancy, Kurtz presented a false analogy in which he noted that Abraham was sometimes mentioned in the book of Genesis to mean not just Abraham but Abraham and his future descendants, and then went on to ask, "Why, then, should not the same writer, or even another, be able to say, from the same point of view, that the sons of Pharez went down in their father to Egypt?"

In his reply to this, Colenso pointed out that Kurtz's analogy was false, because he had mentioned examples of where an ancestor was substituted for the whole race but that the list in Genesis 46 was entirely different in that no one was used to represent others but were listed as children who were "referred to by name, as well as the parent" (Ibid.). Then Colenso answered Kurtz's question quoted above.

Because, from the same point of view, it would be necessary that the children of Reuben's sons, and Simeon's, and Levi's, etc., should all be named and counted in like manner, as being in their father, though not yet born.

I could also analyze the census of the tribe of Benjamin in Numbers 26 to point out that heads of families mentioned here were not listed in Genesis 46, but overkill isn't necessary to show the flimsiness of the quibble now under consideration. If there were any merit to it, we would expect to find consistency in all texts relevant to it. Such consistency would find that all "recognized family heads" in the time of Moses were included in the Genesis-46 list, but as I have just noted, that is not the case. The "solution" that Eric Lyons borrowed from Kurtz and Hengstenberg, then, turns out to be just another grabbing of any straw in sight to try to defend an untenable quibble.

Some proponents of the in-lumbis-patrum theory quote Hebrews 7:1-10 in support of it.

7:1 This "King Melchizedek of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him"; 2 and to him Abraham apportioned "one-tenth of everything." His name, in the first place, means "king of righteousness"; next he is also king of Salem, that is, "king of peace." 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. 4 See how great he is! Even Abraham the patriarch gave him a tenth of the spoils. 5 And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to collect tithes from the people, that is, from their kindred, though these also are descended from Abraham. 6 But this man, who does not belong to their ancestry, collected tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had received the promises. 7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case, tithes are received by those who are mortal; in the other, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. 9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

All that this passage does, however, is shoot a huge hole into the biblical inerrancy doctrine, because proponents of this belief claim that the Bible is inerrant in matters of history, chronology, science, and all other matters, as well as faith and practice, but the idea that unborn children could have gone into Egypt in the loins of their fathers or that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek because at that time he was still in the loins of Abraham is a patently false scientific claim. Each person is a composite of genetic materials evenly inherited from both his father and mother. Until those materials unite, the person simply doesn't exist as an individual. I, for example, am a genetic composite of my father and my mother, so if my father and mother had never met, I would never have been born, even though my father may have married someone else and deposited in her the sperm cell that fertilized the ovum contributed by my mother to bring about my birth, but, as any geneticist would confirm, if that had happened, another person besides me would have been born. Furthermore, we know now that males continually produce sperm cells, so it just would not have been scientifically accurate to say that even the sperm cells, which eventually fertilized the ova that brought about the pregnancies that resulted in the births of Hezron and Hamul, existed "in the loins" of Perez and, say, 15 or 20 years later, they were ejaculated to impregnate their mother(s). Such an idea would be light years away from the actual scientific realities that cause pregnancies and eventual births. It would have been possible for unborn Israelite children to have gone into Egypt in the wombs of their mothers, if their mothers were pregnant at the time, but it wasn't at all possible for Hezron and Hamul or anyone else to go into Egypt in the loins of their fathers. I realize that ancient societies believed that males planted seeds into females, who were seen as sort of like "gardens" in which the implanted seed grew, but we now know that this was a scientifically inaccurate concept. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the ancient Hebrews may have thought about human reproduction. If they really did think that tiny, unborn children actually existed in the loins of their fathers, they were wrong. If they projected this belief into the Bible, then the Bible cannot be the inerrant work that people like Eric Lyons, Michael Hatcher, et al think that it is.

The in-lumbis-patrum quibble also violates a basic principle of both hermeneutics and literary interpretation that says language should be interpreted literally unless there are compelling reasons to assign figurative meaning. In a written debate that I began with the Church-of-Christ preacher Jerry Moffitt, who dropped out before its completion, he stated the principle like this: "Sound hermeneutics teaches us that words have their normal import unless the context inhibits the normal use." No one reading the Genesis 46 genealogy can find any compelling reason in the context to think that the writer meant that some of the people on the list went into Egypt only in a figurative sense, which is what the in-lumbis-patrum theory would is claiming. The need to circumvent a textual or doctrinal embarrassment is insufficient reason to interpret language figuratively, but that is exactly what Eric Lyons, Michael Hatcher, et al, are doing. If the Hezron-Hamul problem were not in the Genesis-46 list, no one would ever have concocted the in-lumbis-patrum theory, so it has been resorted to for no other reason but to try to escape from a textual inconsistency in the Bible.

Lyons, Hatcher, and probably the elders who are desparately trying to pull back into their fold a couple who has seen obvious inconsistencies in the Bible belong to a wing of the Church of Christ that constantly harps about "the new hermeneutics" advocated by a liberal branch of this church, which seeks to reinterpret scriptures less radically than the fundamentalist wing. As advocates of the "old hermeneutics," Lyons, Hatcher, and their like-minded cohorts are at least consistent, because their hermeneutics is as old as the inerrancy doctrine itself: if the literal, face-value meaning of a text poses an embarrassment to the doctrine, they will just interpret it figuratively.

The figurative in-lumbis-patrum interpretation of Genesis 46 is certainly not compatible with other biblical passages that speak of the number of people who came into Egypt with Jacob. The book of Exodus begins with a statement pertaining to the number who came to Egyptwith Jacob.

Exodus 1:1 These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob, each with his family: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphtali; Gad and Asher. 5 The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy in all; Joseph was already in Egypt.

Notice that the writer clearly indicated that he was talking about "sons of Israel" who had gone into Egypt with Jacob. He confined his list to the names of those who were the literal sons of Jacob, and no grandsons or great-grandsons were mentioned. The writer, however, did say something that would indicate to any objective reader that the seventy mentioned in verse 5 were seventy people who had already been born at the time of Jacob's entry into Egypt. By saying that "Joseph was already in Egypt," the writer was clearly indicating that he was talking about people who were living at the time he was writing about. The "seventy in all," then, would have been descendants of Jacob who were already living at that time and not a group of "seventy" that consisted of some who were living at the time and some who would be born later.

This meaning was made evident by what the writer said in the very next verse: "Now Joseph and all his brothers and all that generation died...." All that generation would have been the generation that was contemporary to Jacob's 12 sons listed here. Just as Jacob's 12 sons were living at the time of Jacob's descent into Egypt, so the seventy in all were also living at the time. The writer was, therefore, clearly indicating that the seventy who had come into Egypt belonged to the same generation, living at the same time, and that they had all died. To interpret this any other way would be to take liberties with the text not justified by recognized principles of literary interpretation.

Obviously, then, the writer was speaking about a "generation" that was living at the time of Jacob's entry into Egypt and not a generation that had just been partially born at the time. No one would deny that all twelve of Jacob's sons listed in this passage had already been born at the time of the Israelite descent into Egypt, so since the "seventy in all" were mentioned in the same context with sons who had obviously been born at the time, the only sensible interpretation of this passage would be to understand that the writer meant that seventy descendants in all had entered Egypt with Jacob.

If not, why not?

Deuteronomy 10:22 is even more damaging to the in-lumbis-patrum theory. Here Moses was speaking to the Israelite nation as it prepared to enter into the promised land: "Your forefathers who went down into Egypt were seventy in all, and now Yahweh your God has made you as numerous as the stars in the sky." The obvious intention of the statement was to emphasize the marvelous deed that Yahweh had performed in taking a small number of people and building them into a teeming nation. Why then did "Moses" say that Yahweh had begun with 70 persons if, as the in-lumbis-patrum advocates claim, the actual number of those who had gone into Egypt had been fewer than 70? In other words, if Hezron and Humul had not yet been born at the time, there would have been only 68 actual persons who went into Egypt and if, as Eric Lyons projected above, some of Benjamin's "sons" had also not been born at this time, then there would have been even few than 68 in the group. Why, then, didn't Moses use the actual number living at the time and say that only 60 or perhaps not even that many had gone "down into Egypt"? If the in-lumbis-patrum theory is correct, Moses weakened the effectiveness of his point by inflating the actual number of those who had gone into Egypt with Jacob. Why would he have wanted to do that?

In addition to having studied hermeneutics in the Bible college I attended, I spent 30 years teaching literature on the college level. I think that in all of that time I learned something about principles of literary interpretation. On the essay tests that I gave in my literature classes, I required students to justify any figurative interpretations that they applied to the literary passages on the test. I expect no less of those who try to apply figurative interpretations to biblical passages to make them not mean what they clearly seem to be saying. Let them tell us, then, what there is in Moses' statement quoted above that compels us to understand that he was not speaking literally when he said, "Your forefathers who went down into Egypt seventy in all"?

This brings us finally to the discrepancy in the Old Testament texts (already quoted), which said that 70 went into Egypt with Jacob and Stephen's claim in Acts 7:14 that there had been 75. As we will see, the elders trying to regain their former members used the Septuagint explanation for this variation, but before I address that, I want to show exactly what Genesis 46 claimed about the number of those who went into Egypt.

Genesis 46:2 God spoke to Israel in visions of the night, and said, "Jacob, Jacob." And he said, "Here I am." 3 Then he said, "I am God, the God of your father; do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make of you a great nation there. 4 I myself will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also bring you up again; and Joseph's own hand shall close your eyes." 5 Then Jacob set out from Beer-sheba; and the sons of Israel carried their father Jacob, their little ones, and their wives,in the wagons that Pharaoh had sent to carry him.

The text here is clear in saying that the sons of Israel [Jacob] took their wives with them, but later on the text is just as clear in stating that the wives of Jacob's sons were not to be counted in the seventy who went into Egypt.

26 All the persons belonging to Jacob who came into Egypt, who were his own offspring, not including the wives of his sons, were sixty-six persons in all. 27 The children of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two; all the persons of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy.

As we have already noted, there were sixty-six from Canaan who went with Jacob into Egypt, so when Jacob is added, along with Joseph and his two sons who were already in Egypt, the total number of Israelites who were in Egypt was seventy, but the text just quoted was explicit in saying that the wives of Jacob's sons were not included in the seventy. Any attempt, therefore, to explain the discrepancy between Genesis 46 and Acts 7:14 by counting the wives of Jacob's sons will automatically become suspect. That point will become important later on in the examination of inerrantist attempts to "explain" the 70/75 variation.

The elders referred to several times above used the Septuagint variation to "explain" this problem. One of them appealed to Albert Barnes, who was a 19th-century Presbyterian inerrantist whose commentary is widely used by Bible fundamentalists. I remember that professors at both Bible colleges I attended in the 1950s would often refer students to Barnes's commentary. One should be forewarned not to expect to see anything detrimental to the biblical inerrancy doctrine in this commentary, but in fairness to the Church-of-Christ elder who appealed to Barnes, let's see what his "explanation" of this variation was. The paragaph below was quoted in a letter from one of the elders.

Threescore and fifteen souls, seventy-give persons: There has been much perplexity felt in the explanation of this passage. In Ge 46:26; Ex 1:5; De 10:22, it is expressly said that the number which went down to Egypt consisted of but seventy persons. The question is, in what way these accounts can be reconciled? It is evident that Stephen has followed the account, which is given in the Septuagint. In Ge 46:27, that version reads, "But the sons of Joseph, who were with him in Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob which came with Jacob into Egypt, were seventy-five souls." This number is made out by adding these nine souls to the sixty-six mentioned in Ge 46:26. The difference between the Septuagint and Moses, is that the former mentions five descendants of Joseph who are not recorded by the latter. The names of the sons of Ephraim and Manasseh are recorded in 1 Ch 7:14-21. Their names were Ashriel, Machir, Zelophehad, Peresh, sons of Manasseh; and Shuthelah, son of Ephraim. Why the Septuagint inserted these, it may not be easy to see. But such was evidently the fact; and the fact accords accurately with the historic record, though Moses did not insert their names. The solution of difficulties in regard to chronology is always difficult; and what might be entirely apparent to a Jew, in the time of Stephen, may be wholly inexplicable to us.

As readers can see, Barnes was almost apologetic in winding down his "explanation" of this problem, as if he realized that his explanation might be too weak for some readers to buy, and there are plenty of reasons not to buy it. In the first place, the sons of Manasseh and Ephraim list in 1 Chronicles 7:14-21 are not the same as those listed in Septuagint Genesis 46:20. This is evident when the two texts are juxtaposed.

Septuagint Genesis 46:20 And there were sons born to Manasses, which the Syrian concubine bore to him, even Machir. And Machir begot Galaad. And the sons of Ephraim, the brother of Manasses; Sutalaam, and Taam. And the sons of Sutalaam; Edom.

As one can immediately see, Ashriel, Zelophehad, and Peresh (in Barnes's list) were not "inserted" as sons of Manasseh in Septuagint Genesis 46:20, as Barnes claimed, and Taam, listed in the Septuagint as a son of Ephraim, was not in Barnes's list. Now when we look at the list of Manasseh's and Ephraim's sons in 1 Chronicles 7, we will see even more differences. I will emphasize in bold print those sons of Manasseh and Ephraim whom Barnes did not include in his list.

1 Chronicles 7:14 The sons of Manasseh: Asriel, whom his Aramean concubine bore; she bore Machir the father of Gilead. 15 And Machir took a wife for Huppim and for Shuppim. The name of his sister was Maacah. And the name of the second was Zelophehad; and Zelophehad had daughters. 16 Maacah the wife of Machir bore a son, and she named him Peresh; the name of his brother was Sheresh; and his sons were Ulam and Rekem. 17 The son of Ulam: Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead son of Machir, son of Manasseh. 18 And his sister Hammolecheth bore Ishhod, Abiezer, and Mahlah. 19 The sons of Shemida were Ahian, Shechem, Likhi, and Aniam. 20 The sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah, and Bered his son, Tahath his son, Eleadah his son, Tahath his son, 21 Zabad his son, Shuthelah his son, and Ezer and Elead. Now the people of Gath, who were born in the land, killed them, because they came down to raid their cattle.

The wording of genealogies can be confusing, but a careful analysis of verses 20-21 indicates that Shuthelah was Ephraim's son, that Bered was Shuthelah's son, that Tahath was Bered's son, etc., so that Ezer and Elead at the end of the list would have been actual sons of Ephraim, so the genealogy in 1 Chronicles that Barnes appealed to actually had four sons (Asriel, Zelophead, Ezer, and Elead) who were not listed in Septuagint 46:20. (An examination of this genealogy will show that Peresh, along with Sheresh, was a grandson of Manasseh and not a son, as Barnes claimed above.) Furthermore, a continuation of his genealogy in 1 Chronicles shows that after Ephraim had mourned the death of his sons, he "went in to his wife, and she conceived and bore a son; and he named him Beriah" (v:23), so that would make a fifth son of Ephraim who was not listed in Septuagint Genesis 46:20, so one has to wonder why these were omitted if the intention of the writer was to include the sons of Manasseh and Ephraim who would be born after the Israelite descent into Egypt. In other words, an adaptation of Colenso's question is very applicable here: "If the intention of the Septuagint writer was to name the sons of Manasseh and Ephraim who would be born after the descent into Egypt, why didn't he name all of them?"

A related question would be to ask why the Septuagint writer listed Galaad [Gilead], who was the son of Machir and therefore a grandson of Manasseh but didn't list Peresh and Seresh, who were also grandsons of Manasseh (1 Chron. 7:21). There are so many other inconsistencies in Barnes's attempt to justify the Septuagint counting of Jacob's descendants that I could drag the discussion of them out forever. Verse 15, for example, says that Maacah was Machir's sister, but the next verse says that Maacah was Machir's wife, so did he have an incestuous marriage with one of his sister's? Verse 15 also says that Machir took wives for Huppim and Shuppim, but both of these are listed with variant spellings in Genesis 46:21,Numbers 26:29, and 1 Chronicles 8:5 as sons of Benjamin. As I showed in "Finley's Solution," the chronology and genealogies in 1 Chronicles are so inconsistent with what the Old Testament says elsewhere in these matters that this book cannot be considered reliable enough in any sense to settle disputes like one now under consideration. That anyone would appeal to 1 Chronicles, as Barnes did, is sufficient to question his qualifications to speak with any authority at all on issues pertaining to biblical discrepancies.

I don't doubt at all that Luke, who was probably putting words into Stephen's mouth, was quoting the Septuagint version. Since most New Testament writers relied on the Septuagint rather than the so-called "inspired" Masoretic text, there is no reason to think that Stephen or Luke would have done differently. Although he incorrectly identified what "sons" of Manasseh and Ephraim were included in the verse, Barnes was certainly right in saying thatGenesis 46:20 in the Septuagint included grandsons of Joseph, who were not in the Masoretic text from which most English translations were derived, but as I will explain below, rather than settling anything pertaining to biblical discrepancies, this raises some serious questions about the reliability of the biblical text. Before discussing that problem, let's look again at Brenton's English translation of this Septuagint verse.

19 And the sons of Rachel, the wife of Jacob; Joseph, and Benjamin. 20 And there were sons born to Joseph in the land of Egypt, whom Aseneth, the daughter of Petephres, priest of Heliopolis, bore to him, even Manasses and Ephraim. And there were sons born to Manasses, which the Syrian concubine bore to him, even Machir. And Machir begot Galaad. And the sons of Ephraim, the brother of Manasses; Sutalaam, and Taam. And the sons of Sutalaam; Edom.

Rather than solving a textual problem, this Septuagint variation, as I noted above, raises some questions with serious implications about the reliability of the biblical text found in most English translations. First, as I also noted above, New Testament writers frequently quoted the Septuagint version, so if the fundamentalist belief that those who wrote the Bible were inspired by the omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit is true, then we must wonder why inerrantists don't consider the Old Testament version that was apparently preferred by the Holy Spirit to be the one from which our English translations should be derived. Stephen, for example, was allegedly "full of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:55), and as he began his speech, his face was seen as if "it had been the face of an angel" (Acts 6:15), so if these claims are true, his reliance on the Septuagint version during his speech must have been something that the Holy Spirit directed him to do. If that is so, then why are inerrantists like Lyons, Hatcher, and the church elders involved in this discussion using English translations that were derived from a Hebrew text that differed from the Holy Spirit's choice of Old Testament scriptures? This is an inconsistency that inerrantists need to explain.

A second question raised by Stephen's usage of the Septuagint concerns the reliability of the biblical text as it has been transmitted through the centuries. I mentioned earlier that a favorite argument of biblical inerrantists is that the reliability of the biblical text can be trusted because ancient scribes were so meticulous in their work that they counted the number of letters in their scrolls to make sure that they conformed exactly to the texts they had copied from, but if that claim is true, why does the Septuagint differ so substantially from the English translations that were derived from the Masoretic text? I say that the Septuagint differs "so substantially," because the variation just quoted above is just one of many that are too numerous to cite, but a look at just a couple of others might give readers an idea of how numerous these variations are. The Septuagint genealogy in Genesis 11, for example, lists Cainan as a generation that followed Shem's son Arphaxad, but as the juxtaposition below shows, no such generation was listed in the Masoretic text.

Septuagint Genesis 11:11 And these are the generations of Sem: and Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood. 12 And Sem lived, after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 13 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. 14 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.

Masoretic NRSV Genesis 11:10 These are the descendants of Shem. When Shem was one hundred years old, he became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood; 11 and Shem lived after the birth of Arpachshad five hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 12 When Arpachshad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah; 13 and Arpachshad lived after the birth of Shelah four hundred three years, and had other sons and daughters.

The variation here is obvious. The Septuagint says that Shem begot Arphaxad and then Arphaxad begot Cainan, who then begot Sala, but the Masoretic text goes from Arphaxad to Shelah [Sala]. There is no Cainan in the Masorectic. Inerrantists will say that there is no problem here, because genealogies sometimes skipped generations, so the Masoretic text simply skipped Cainan, but that quibble cannot solve a serious chronological discrepancy in the two versions. The Mosoretic text says that Arphaxad was 135 when Cainan was born and that Cainan was 130 when Sala [Shelah] was born. Hence, Shelah, according to the Septuagint, was born 265 years [135 + 130 = 265] after the birth of Arphaxad, but according to the Masoretic, Shelah [Sala] was born 35 years after the birth of Arphaxad. That is a chronological discrepancy that cannot be explained by the skipped-generation quibble.

My reason for citing this discrepancy, however, is to emphasize the problem of appealing to the Septuagint version to "solve" discrepancies. Variations in the Septuagint are so numerous that any reasonable person will wonder why the Holy Spirit (as biblical inerrantists) claim would have directed New Testament writers to quote it if the Masoretic text is (as inerrantists also claim) the version that was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That New Testament writers did generally rely on the Septuagint can be seen not just in Stephen's appeal to it but also in Luke's reliance on it in giving the genealogy of Jesus. After having traced the genealogy from Joseph to Abraham, he continued through the generations listed in Genesis 11.

Luke 3:34 Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, 35 son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, 36 son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem....

As the part emphasized in bold print shows, Luke included Cainan as the son of Arphaxad and the father of Shelah, a clear indication that he was using the Septuagint as his source. If the Holy Spirit directed Luke to use the Septuagint text, does that mean that the Holy Spirit knew that this text was correct in what it said? If so, does that mean that the Septuaint is correct in saying that Shelah [Sala] was born 265 years after the birth of Arphaxad and that the Masoretic is wrong in saying that Shelah [Sela] was born only 35 years after the birth of Arphaxad?

I will repeat again that I am sure that Luke, who obviously used the Septuagint in writing the genealogy in Luke 3:36, probably used it in Acts 7:14 in the speech that he attributed to Stephen, but that would in no way explain why variations like the 70/75 discrepancy would be in two versions of the Old Testament that the biblical inerrancy doctrine would require its proponents to believe that the omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit was involved in either writing or preserving. Those who appeal to the Septuagint to "solve" the 70/75 problem must give a reasonable explanation for why this variation would even exist in two documents with which the Holy Spirit was presumably closely associated. To think that the Holy Spirit had "inspired" the Genesis author to write in Hebrew that 70 Israelites had gone into Egypt but later "inspired" Stephen to quote a Greek text that said that this number was 75 is a rather bizarre view of what constitutes divine "inspiration" in the writing of "God's word." It presents a contradictory view of the Holy Spirit as entity who was omniscient yet unable to make up his mind.

In his article quoted above, Eric Lyons had tried to float another "solution" before he tried the Septuagint "explanation."

First, it is possible that Stephen included Jacob’s daughters-in-law in his calculation of seventy-five. Jacob’s children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Genesis 46:8-26). If Jacob, Joseph, and Joseph’s two sons are added, then the total number is seventy (46:27). If, however, to the sixty-six Stephen added the wives of Jacob’s sons’, he could have legitimately reckoned Jacob’s household as numbering seventy-five, instead of seventy. [NOTE: Jacob is listed by Stephen individually.] Yet, someone might ask how sixty-six plus “twelve” equals seventy-five. Simple—not all of the wives were included. Joseph’s wife obviously would not have been calculated into this figure, if Joseph himself were not. And, at least two of the eleven remaining wives may have been deceased by the time the family journeyed to Egypt. We know for sure that Judah’s wife had already died by this time (Genesis 38:12), and it is reasonable to conclude that another of the wives had passed away as well. (In all likelihood, Simeon’s wife had already died—cf. Genesis 46:10.) Thus, when Stephen stated that “Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people” (Acts 7:14), realistically he could have included the living wives of Joseph’s brothers to get a different (though not a contradictory) number.

I have already rebutted this quibble when I noted above that Genesis 46:28 clearly says that the wives of Jacob's sons were not counted in the sixty-six who went out of Canaan with Jacob. Lyons and like-minded cohorts may quibble that even though Genesis 46:28 does say this, that would not mean that Stephen could not have included nine of Jacob's daughters-in-law, but how much sense does it make to think that someone who was "full of the Holy Spirit" as Stephen allegedly was (Acts 7:55) would have chosen to go off on his own to give a head count different from the one that the Holy Spirit had inspired? When I see speculative quibbles like this one, I have to wonder just how many other biblical texts, if the quibble is true, would represent what the writers themselves thought rather than what the Holy Spirit "inspired" them to write. Perhaps the church elders involved in this discussion can tell us that. If they will answer this, I am sure that the former members of their congregation will be glad to pass it along to me.

Let's notice now what we have seen so far in this rebuttal of the elders' attempt to explain the 70/75 discrepancy.

• Exodus 1:1-5 is too explicit to interpret it to mean anything except that sixty-six of Jacob's descendants went into Egypt with him.
  • Joseph and Joseph's three sons who were already in Egypt plus Jacob made the number of Israelites in Egypt seventy (Gen. 46:27).
  • Deuteronomy 10:22 is too explicit to interpret it to mean anything but that seventy Israelites went into Egypt.
  • The wording of the texts cited above, especially Exodus 1:1-5, clearly implies that these seventy were people who were living at the time of Jacob's descent into Egypt.
  • The wives of Jacob's sons were not counted in either the sixty-six or the seventy (Gen. 46:26).

I recall a song that was popular when I was much younger. The lyrics said something like, "Trying to make a hundred; ninety-nine and a half just won't do." We can apply this obvious truth to the 70/75 discrepancy. The passages we have quoted and analyzed say that 70, not counting the wives of Jacob's sons, went into Egypt. Seventy is seventy and not sixty-nine or sixty eight or seventy-one or seventy-two or any other number, so if seventy, not counting Jacob's daughters-in-law, went into Egypt, then certainly seventy-five didn't go. Hence, if one "inspired" text said that 70 went into Egypt and another said that 75 went, they cannot both be right. This is so obvious that even Robert Turkel, a narcissistic "apologist" who writes on the Tektonics website under the pseudonym James Patrick Holding, had to admit that two conflicting views cannot both be right, even though he has at times taken the opposite view. In "Not InDavincible," an article about Dan Brown's fictional thriller The Da Vinci Code,Turkel made the following comment to which I have added bold-print emphasis.

Don't try to tell me, when I ask you who is right (myself [sic] or Brown), that we "both are". [sic] That's just plain ridiculous. If you really believe something like this, you need to learn some basic principles of sound thinking, such as the Law of Noncontradiction.

Since Brown's book was a work of fiction, I have no interest in trying to defend the premises in it or to take issue with the controversy that it has created among some oversensitive Christians, who for some incomprehensible reason have at times gotten all bent out of shape over a fictional mystery novel. I quoted Turkel's comment above just to underscore an important point, which is a recognized rule of evidence: "Two inconsistent statements cannot both be right. They may both be wrong, but they cannot both be right." Being aware of positions that Turkel has taken to try to "explain" biblical discrepancies, I was surprised to see him say what I quoted above, because I suspect that if he were presented with the fact that Masoretic Genesis 46:27 says that "seventy souls" went into Egypt, whereas the same Septuagint passage says that seventy-five went into Egypt, Turkel would argue that they were both right. I do thank him, however, for saying that in a disagreement that he has had with Dan Brown, they cannot both be right. "That's just plain ridiculous," he said, so I am going to appropriate what he said here and say that it is just plain ridiculous to claim that both Masoretic Genesis 46:27 and Septuagint Genesis 46:27 were right about how many Israelites, not counting the wives of Jacob's son, went into Egypt. If 70, not counting the daughters-in-law of Jacob, went, then it was incorrect to say that 75 went, because Septuagint Genesis 46:26 clearly says that there were 75, besides the wives of the sons of Jacob.

Some biblical inerrantists would no doubt argue that the Septuagint count is also correct because it listed among Joseph's descendants three grandsons and two great-grandsons of Joseph that were not included in the Masoretic version. That is true, but I have argued at length above and, in my opinion, ably supported the argument that the language of Genesis 46 and related texts was intended to convey that the ones in the list were people who had already been born. Hence, the text erred in listing Hezron and Hamul, who, if the rest of the Genesis text is accurate, couldn't possibly have been born by the time of Jacob's descent into Egypt, and certainly the Septuagint version erred in listing grandsons and great-grandsons of Joseph who definitely could not have been born by that time. As we have noted above, Joseph was 30 when he was made food administrator of Egypt (Gen. 41:46), and his sons Manasseh and Ephraim were born after this (Gen. 41:50-52) and before Joseph was reunited with his brothers at the age of 39 (Gen. 45:6), so Joseph who had two sons under the age of nine at this time certainly could not have had grandsons and great-grandsons by then. Whoever added these names to the Genesis-6 list erred. That is the only sensible conclusion to reach, no matter how desperately biblical inerrantists try to "explain" discrepancies like these.

We can conclude, then, that no matter how much the church elders involved in these discussions want to believe otherwise, there are some rather glaring discrepancies in the Bible pertaining to the list of those who went into Egypt with Joseph.

• Genesis 46:12 said that Hezron and Hamul, grandsons of Judah, were among those who went to Egypt, but I showed in "How Could Hezron and Hamul Have Gone into Egypt with Jacob?" that if the rest of theBOOK

• of Genesis is accurate, it would have been chronologically impossible for them to have been born by that time.
  • Genesis 46:15 claims that there were thirty-three descendants of Leah in the Israelite descent into Egypt, but a count of the names in verses 8-15 shows that there were only 32.
  • Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5, and Deuteronomy 10:22 clearly say that there were 70 in the generation that went into Egypt, so Stephen's claim in Acts 7:14 that there were 75 in this group stands in clear contradiction to the three Old Testament texts.

It is time for biblical inerrantists to join mainstream Christianity and admit that the Bible is not the marvelous work of unity that they claim it is. In a third article in this series, I will show that a popular claim that, despite having been written over centuries by various individuals, the Bible is perfectly harmonious in everything it says is so ludicrously contrary to fact that no reasonable person can believe it.