Glasnik se pravi mudar a ustvari je daleko od toga. Da se samo malčice potrudio lako bi došao do odgovora na to pitanje, ali nije jer njega istina ne zanima. Njega zanima samo on sam, samo njegova sopstvena ideologija, a ne Istina.
Kao što se može videti u tekstu ispod to pitanje je odavno razrešeno i nije nikakva misterija.
Upravo taj slučaj jeste svedočanstvo o iskrivljenosti teksta Septuaginte za koju se on drži kao pijan plota a ne obratno. Istinoljubivi Hrišćanin će uzimati u obzir i Septuagintu i Masoretski tekst u svom istraživanju istine a ne pristrasno samo jedan ili drugi, zato što su prepisivačke greške moguće i u jednom i u drugom.
Ukratko, grešku je napravio prepisivač Lukinog jevanđelja i uneo jednog Kainana više u rodoslov i onda je ta greška da ne bi bilo nesaglasja između Septuaginte i Novog zaveta uneta u novija izdanja Septuaginte.
Starija izdanja Septuaginte kao i Lukinog jevanđelja nemaju tu interpolaciju i slažu se sa Masoretskim tekstom. Više o tome u nastavku teksta.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/.../
It is well known that the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament usually follow the LXX or Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, written in Alexandria, Egypt in about 250–150 BC (named because, acccording to legend, it was translated by 72 rabbis, six from each of the 12 tribes of Israel—
septuaginta is Latin for 70).
So if a copyist of Luke’s Gospel is responsible for the error, how come it is in the LXX as well?
A clue to the solution is that the extra Cainan in Genesis 11 is found only in manuscripts of the LXX that were written long after Luke’s Gospel. The oldest LXX manuscripts do not have this extra Cainan.
Mr Larry Pierce, the producer of the
Online Bible, and editor of a modern English version of the comprehensive
Annals of the World by Archbishop Ussher (1581–1656), confirmed this with information from Jewish historian
Flavius Josephus (AD 37/38 – c.100) about Cainan of
Luke 3:36.2 The following is Mr Pierce’s table comparing the genealogy from the Hebrew text, the LXX, and Josephus3 giving years after the Flood at birth of the son mentioned:
Patriarch | Hebrew Text | LXX | Josephus |
| Shem | 2 | 2 | 12 |
| Arphaxad | 35 | 135 | 135 |
| Cainan | … | 130 | … |
| Shelah | 30 | 130 | 130 |
| Eber | 34 | 134 | 134 |
| Peleg | 30 | 130 | 130 |
| Rue | 32 | 132 | 130 |
| Serug | 30 | 130 | 132 |
| Nahor | 29 | 79 | 120 |
| Terah | 70 | 70 | 70 |
| Total (Flood to Terah’s firstborn)4 | 292 | 1072 | 993 |
Mr Pierce points out:
‘If Josephus did not use the LXX he must have used some document based on the LXX for it repeats too many of the mistakes of the LXX to be a chance occurrence.
It appears at the time of Josephus, the extra generation of Cainan was not in the LXX text or the document that Josephus used otherwise Josephus would have included it! If the LXX contained the reading, Josephus either omitted it by mistake (which is not likely) or held the reading in low esteem. We know that when Jerome (AD c.347–419/420) translated the Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible) in the 5th century AD, he did not use the LXX in spite of Augustine’s (354–430) pleadings
because Jerome said it was too inaccurate. He used the Hebrew text which did not include the variation.’
Mr Pierce points out that further information comes from
Julius Africanus, (AD c. 180 – c. 250), ‘the first Christian historian known to have produced a universal chronology.’5 In his chronology (tabulated below), written in c. AD 220,
he also omitted this mysterious Cainan.6
The numbers of years in his chronology (right column), identical to those of the LXX (clearly inflated from the reliable Masoretic Text7,8), show that he must have used the LXX—but no Cainan even as late as AD 220!
| Adam to Noah | 2262 |
| Arphaxad begat Salah | 135 |
| Salah begat Eber | 130 |
| Eber begat Peleg | 134 |
| Peleg begat Rue | 130 |
Mr Pierce summarizes:
‘I think we have more than enough evidence that would stand up in any court of law to show that every single copy we have of the LXX text was corrupted some time after AD 220. The copies of the LXX available to both Josephus and Africanus did not include this spurious generation. It is also not in either the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Hebrew manuscripts.
‘All these predate the New Testament Greek text. And while Josephus was not a Christian writer and would not have been influenced by copies of Luke genealogies, Julius Africanus was a devout Christian. In his Epistle to Aristides ch. 3, he made an extensive study of the genealogies of both Luke and Matthew. In fact he quotes
Luke 3:23.9 Hence, Africanus had copies of both the Gospel of Luke and Matthew. So one cannot claim that Africanus did not know about Luke’s Gospel or his genealogies. If the copies of Luke’s writings had this spurious Cainan, no doubt Africanus would have amended his chronology to include it.
In fact, the earliest known extant copy of Luke, the 102-page (originally 144) papyrus codex of the Bodmer Collection labeled P75 (dated between AD 175 and 22510), omits the extra Cainan. Thus the reading in Luke 3:36 cannot be shown to exist before AD 220.’
The great Reformed Baptist theologian Dr John Gill provided further strong support that Cainan is a spurious addition. He summarized the textual evidence as follows in his major Bible commentary. And Gill was probably the greatest Hebraist of the 18th century (before the rise of ‘higher criticism’) and staunchly defended biblical inerrancy, and only very rarely pointed out textual problems:11
‘Ver. 36. Which was the son of Cainan, … This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in
Ge 11:12 nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in
1Ch 1:24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is it in Beza’s most ancient Greek copy of Luke: it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke’s Gospel, and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say “early”, because it is in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to stand neither in the text, nor in any version: for certain it is, there never was such a Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, for Salah was his son; and with him the next words should be connected.’
There is another explanation consistent with inerrancy of the original autographs. This is that the first ‘Cainan’ was left out in extant Masoretic and Samaritan Old Testament manuscripts as well as 1 Chronicles, but was preserved in LXX manuscripts.
But the late Henri Morris pointed out that this is unlikely; rather, the former is likely to be the correct explanation, especially as Jewish copyists of the OT were far more accurate than Gentile copyists of the NT.12 The evidence from Josephus, Africanus and Gill shows conclusively that the extra name Cainan is not part of God’s original Word, but due to a later copyist’s error.
Either way, this extra name ‘Cainan’ cannot be used as an argument against biblical inerrancy (nor can it support ideas of gaps in the Genesis genealogies—for more information, see Biblical chronogenealogies).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dakle, čitava ova priča jeste promašeni pokušaj Glasnika da dokaže nerelevantnost Masoretskog teksta po pitanju hronologije. Mi u svom hronološkom istraživanju se nismo držali pristrasno samo Masoretskog teksta nego smo uzimali u obzir i ispravan prevod Septuaginte, Knjigu pravednoga i njene ispravke kao i Targume, a takođe i autoritetna arheološka istraživanja Dejvida Rola i druge izvore.
. Just look at this fact: 5g roll out in Wuhan China in October 2019 then just in December 2019: here comes the Coronavirus 
