The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

occasionally re–translated over several centuries, increasing the complexity of the problem. The knotty textual situation is exactly what one might expect because of Kainan’s accidental omission from an early Hebrew archetypal MS. Instead of being definitive evidence against Kainan’s originality, the textual mess serves to support a larger argument in favor of his inclusion. For now, my working theory is that Kainan is original to Genesis 10:24, 11:13-14, and Luke 3:36, unless evidence and analysis moves the research into a different direction. While the question of Kainan is significant, it must be reiterated that the originality of the longer chronology is not dependent on Kainan’s inclusion in Gen 10, 11 or Luke 3:36. Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 132