A particularly concerning issue within Biblical genealogies is the chronology issues in Genesis 5 and 11. The consensus for many years within the historical academic arena is that numbers within these genealogies present a timeframe which is much too abbreviated compared to what we reason to be possible from our studies in ancient history. This issue poses difficult questions for those who favor Biblical historical accuracy. For many, the solution is to ignore either the Biblical data or the extra-Biblical data. I argue that neither have to be ignored if both are understood within a proper context. We are allowed for both the Biblical information and extra-biblical information to present their intended goal harmoniously. History for the sake of academics must be understood as a human endeavor. History for history’s sake is not a primary part of the message within the Bible. The data both inside and outside the Bible is subject to context and interpretation. The Bible writes with a theological premise; and extra-biblical sources write from political, social, or pagan reasons. If we believe our understanding of history is credible, and that the Bible is truth itself, then neither will contradict the truth found in each other. We must pursue a reasoned answer when truth is questioned.

The book of Genesis was the first historical context the children of Israel were given concerning God’s plan for them. The detailed information contained within are based in part on family records and stories, but primarily upon God’s choice of information. There is certainly some information only made known by the revelation of God. His thought process and actions are only made known by His dictation. We must assume that He has the final say in all information. The Jewish (and Christian) religion is not philosophical in origin, it is historical. Belief in God is rooted in creation. Terms of salvation are rooted in actual death and sacrifice. This means that historical information with scripture has a significance. It would be inconsistent for God to include his own divine truth as indistinguishable from blatant error (See article on Historicity). If we hold to scripture as standard, we must also believe that the data within the genealogies are accurate to their intended meaning.

It is vital, then, to understand that there is a potential difference between the apparent meaning of scripture and the historical meaning. In other words, if the intended meaning was figurative, then we cannot apply historical guidelines to it. The truth is never in question if we believe in accurate transmission. The apparent meaning is what we as readers interpret the text to indicate. This understanding may change due to context, other passages, language issues, and other historical data. We must remember to be open to interpretations outside of our own perspective. With this in mind, the apparent meaning of the text is often the best interpretation. Most authors do not intend to make the meaning difficult to understand. It takes a great deal to turn the apparent meaning.

Another consideration is that apparent meaning depends on the reader. The original readers will usually have a better understanding of the intended meaning than we will. They were more aware of the cultural and contextual issues that may have guided the author. The apparent meaning for them may seem hidden and elusive to us. Likewise our post-messianic perspective gives us an advantage in may cases. So the best we can do is to try to first understand the apparent meaning through the original reader’s perspective. Second, we can interpret the original meaning through Jesus to find how to understand it today.