02/23/2026

 

Samuel Clifford

 

One objection to adding up the Genesis genealogies to find the age of the earth is that there are gaps in the genealogies. Even John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, in Appendix II of their extraordinary book, The Genesis Flood, stated there may be gaps in the genealogies.*1 The answer to this idea will be twofold. The first part will give doubt to the idea that there are gaps in the genealogies, and the second part will show that, even if there are, it doesn’t really matter. 

 

Part 1: Is There Evidence of Gaps?

 

In part 1, there is an assessment of arguments given by those who state there are gaps in the genealogies with a critique of those arguments.

 

Argument #1: Matthew’s Genealogy

 

One frequent piece of evidence used by those who favor gaps in the genealogies is that there are gaps in Matthew’s record of Christ’s genealogy. Matthew 1:8 records that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11-14 reveals that Joram was instead the great-grandfather of Uzziah. This is allowable for Matthew because it was a perfectly acceptable practice to call one’s grandfather “father” or grandson “son.” Lita Sanders gives a plausible explanation for Matthew’s gap in the genealogy in her article “Are there gaps in the biblical genealogies?” in which she states, “Matthew claims that his choice of names is significant because of the number of generations listed ‘So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen generations’ (Matthew 1:17). The most plausible significance for this is because the numerical value of the letters in David’s name added up to 14.”*2 In other words, Matthew sought to keep his genealogy into groups of 14 (14 from Abraham to David, David to the Babylonian Captivity, and from Babylonian captivity to Christ).

 

What is the Problem with this Argument?

 

The main problem with this argument is that it commits a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. The argument goes like this: “If there are gaps in the Genesis genealogies, then we might find gaps in other genealogies. We find gaps in other genealogies; therefore, there must be gaps in the Genesis genealogies.” The consequent in this argument is “we might find gaps in the genealogies.” It does not follow that, since this part of the argument is true, the first statement (antecedent) is also true. Another example of this fallacy is the following:

 

“A car without tires will not move. The car is not moving, therefore, it has no tires.” The reason this is false is because, while a car without tires will not move, there are other reasons the car may not be moving, such as if it has no gas. The same is true with the Genesis genealogies. Though some genealogies have gaps, that does not necessarily prove the Genesis genealogies have gaps.

 

Argument #2: The Extra Cainan

 

Genesis 11:12 states that Arphaxad begot Salah. However, Luke 3:36 states that Arphaxad is Salah’s grandfather. According to Luke, Arphaxad was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Salah (Shelah). This is a seemingly watertight argument in favor of gaps in the genealogies. An extra Cainan in between Arphaxad and Salah in Luke certainly gives doubt that there are no gaps in the Genesis genealogies. However, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati has been able to refute the claims of those who favor gaps in the Genesis genealogies by mentioning the following facts concerning Cainan in Luke 3:36:

 

1. 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 don’t have an extra Cainan.

 

2. The earliest known extant copy of Luke omits the extra Cainan. This is the 102-page (originally 144) papyrus codex of the Bodmer Collection labeled “P” (dated between AD 175 and 225). 

 

3. Josephus used the LXX as his source but did not mention the second Cainan.

 

4. Julius Africanus (c. AD 180-c. 250) was the “first Christian historian known to have produced a universal chronology.” In his chronology, he also followed the LXX ages but, once again, omitted this mysterious Cainan. 

 

A good explanation for this extra Cainan that found its way into some copies of Luke is that it was simply a copyist error. Since the phrase “the sin of Cainan” (referring to the son of Enosh) appears in Luke 3:37, it is very easy to believe that a scribe accidentally copied the name twice.

 

Argument #3: Yalad 

 

The Hebrew word translated as “beget” in the King James Version of the Bible is yalad (יָלַד). Those who favor a gap in the Genesis genealogies are correct when stating this can refer to something more than a direct parent-child relationship. However, it is apparently never used that way in the entire Old Testament. Meaning, whenever the form “X begat Y” occurs in the Old Testament, it always indicates a direct parent-child relationship. The New Testament does sometimes skip generations when using “X begat Y,” however, the New Testament was written in Greek and uses a different word for “begat” (γεννάω). 

 

Part 2: The Irrelevance of Gaps

 

Now that a critique of arguments used for gaps in the Genesis genealogies have been given, this part will focus on how, even if there are gaps in the genealogies, it is irrelevant to the age of the earth. It is a false idea to say that if there are missing generations in the Genesis accounts then we cannot know the age of the earth. The issue is irrelevant because the time frames given in Genesis are measured by the number of years between one event and another event, regardless of how many generations occurred between them. 

 

For example, Genesis 5:3 states that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was “begotten” (which refers to Seth’s conception). How old was Adam when Seth was begotten? Adam was 130. Whether Seth was Adam’s son, grandson, or great-grandson, it doesn’t matter since the answer to how old Adam was when Seth was begotten is always going to be 130. 

 

In summary, even if there were gaps in the generations represented in the genealogies, the age of the ancestor at the birth of his descendant is not dependent on whether that descendant is his son or his great-great grandson (though all evidence points to straightforward father-son descent).

 

References for this Section: 

 

*1 Whitcomb, J., and Morris, H. 1961. “The Genesis Flood” (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed), pp. 489. 

 

*2 Sanders, Lita. “Genealogy Gaps.” Creation.com | Creation Ministries International, Creation Ministries International, 30 July 2021.