At a glance
A genealogy that omits names does not automatically supply extra years. Genesis 5 and 11 give ages as well as relationships; this site reads those repeated formulas as chronological links. A competing reading treats the named person as a later descendant and the stated age as the beginning of that family line. That proposal needs an argument about these particular formulas, not merely examples of abbreviated genealogies elsewhere. The Cainan textual difference is real, but P75 cannot be used as a definite omission.
What needs to be established
In the 2025 first edition of Noah’s Flood Revisited, chapter 11, “Biblical Indicator #1: Incomplete Genealogies,” Ross argues from flexible ancestry terms, abbreviated genealogies, the Kohathite clan totals and Cainan’s presence in Luke. Crucially, he reads the stated age as the beginning of a family line that eventually includes the named descendant. He estimates that biblical genealogies can be 1–50 percent complete and suggests a Flood date of roughly 5,000–100,000 years ago from genealogies alone. Those are Ross’s estimates, not conclusions this site accepts. The reference locator is the section heading, not a printed page. [1]
The central distinction is between a missing name and an additional interval. Showing that a list can omit a person establishes neither the length of the omission nor how an age attached to the next relationship should be read.
The age formulas in context
Genesis 5:3–32 records a patriarch’s age at fathering, subsequent years, and total lifespan. Genesis 11:10–26 similarly supplies ages and subsequent years. Genesis 7:6–11 places the Flood within Noah’s life.
On the site’s YEC reading, these formulas connect the stated intervals into a chronology. The repeated age information does work that a simple ancestral list does not. If an age measures the interval to the next named person, omitted intermediate names would not themselves increase that interval.
The alternative is not logically impossible. An interpreter may understand the fathering language as ancestry and take the stated age to mark an earlier birth in the line leading to the named descendant. Biblical genealogies can be abbreviated, as comparison of Matthew 1:6–17 with the royal history shows. This site nevertheless finds the family-line reading less persuasive in Genesis 5 and 11 because it adds an unstated intermediate referent to a repeated numerical formula. That is the specific interpretive disagreement; saying that the text is precise cannot substitute for explaining it.
This reading supports a recent biblical chronology. It does not settle every variant number or establish a particular calendar year for creation without further textual and chronological work.
Cainan and the limits of P75
Luke 3:35–37 includes Cainan where the standard Hebrew form of Genesis 11 proceeds from Arphaxad to Shelah. The Greek Genesis tradition represented by Brenton includes Cainan with a stated age. [3] The difference deserves explanation and should not be dismissed.
Wieland Willker’s analysis of the damaged manuscript explains that several relevant names fall in a lacuna; the particular omitted name cannot be determined securely. [2] P75 is therefore uncertain evidence at this point. The damaged text does not securely establish that P75 omitted Cainan, nor does it establish a copying error in Luke as the solution.
A textual tradition that includes a named generation with stated years differs from an interpretation that inserts tens of thousands of unstated years. Neither the variant nor uncertainty in one manuscript supplies such a duration by itself. But the variant also cautions against treating every transmitted name and number as undisputed.
Why the Exodus lists do not settle it
Exodus 6:16–25 identifies families; Numbers 3:27–32 gives clan totals. A population argument depends on assumptions about growth and family structure. Even if those lists telescope, transferring that result to Genesis’s age formulas requires a further argument. This point does not require resolving the disputed length or location of Israel’s Egyptian sojourn.
Conclusion
The YEC reading retains a substantial contextual argument from age-bearing formulas. Evidence for abbreviated genealogies should be assessed, but it is not itself a demonstrated long chronology. The same discipline applies to this site’s alternative: it must explain its interpretation and handle textual variants honestly.