• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How many descendants did Jacob have through Leah?

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
These are the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob and his descendants) who went to Egypt:
(1)Reuben the firstborn of Jacob.

9 The sons of Reuben:
(2)Hanoch, (3)Pallu, (4)Hezron and (5)Carmi.

10 The sons of (6)Simeon:
(7)Jemuel, (8)Jamin, (9)Ohad, (10)Jakin, (11)Zohar and (12)Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman.

11 The sons of (13)Levi:
(14)Gershon, (15)Kohath and (16)Merari.

12 The sons of (17)Judah:
(18)Er, (19)Onan, (20)Shelah, (21)Perez and (22)Zerah (but Er and Onan had died in the land of Canaan).
The sons of Perez:
(23)Hezron and (24)Hamul.

13 The sons of (25)Issachar:
(26)Tola, (27)Puah, [a] (28)Jashub and (29)Shimron.

14 The sons of (30)Zebulun:
(31)Sered, (32)Elon and (33)Jahleel.

15 These were the sons Leah bore to Jacob in Paddan Aram, [c] besides his daughter (34)Dinah. These sons and daughters of his were thirty-three in all.


Genesis 46:8-15 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Ok, so if we count each name, we can clearly see that there are 34. Then it says that there are only 33.

Anyone care to try and defend biblical inerrancy in the face of such a clear contradiction?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Shaul might not be officially counted if they weren't in a holy union when Shaul was conceived.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Shaul might not be officially counted if they weren't in a holy union when Shaul was conceived.
So you think that his inclusion in the list was an error?
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Shaul might not be officially counted if they weren't in a holy union when Shaul was conceived.
Why then would any of Jacob's descendants through Zilpah be counted? Jacob and Zilpah were not in a holy union when Gad or Asher were conceived.

The sons of Gad:
Zephon, [d] Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi and Areli.

17 The sons of Asher:
Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah.
Their sister was Serah.
The sons of Beriah:
Heber and Malkiel.

18 These were the children born to Jacob by Zilpah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Leah—sixteen in all.
Same goes for his descendants through Bilhah, to whom he was similarly not in holy union with.

The son of Dan:
Hushim.

24 The sons of Naphtali:
Jahziel, Guni, Jezer and Shillem.

25 These were the sons born to Jacob by Bilhah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Rachel—seven in all.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As a side note, if you look at the prefacing remark, it says:

These are the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob and his descendants) who went to Egypt:
But then it goes on to include Er and Onan in the list, even though they never went to Egypt. They died in the land of Canaan before Jacob and his family left to meet Joseph and his sons in Egypt.

Why does it claim to list one thing and then go on to list something else?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
15 These were the sons Leah bore to Jacob in Paddan Aram, [c] besides his daughter (34)Dinah. These sons and daughters of his were thirty-three in all.

One could say that Dinah was excluded for some reason, and without her there is 33.

Also
Some alleged contradictions of the Bible are presented as a dilemma: “Was the Bible given by inspiration of God as indicated in 2 Timothy 3:16 or was it written by men as indicated in other passages (Luke 1:3; John 21:24)?” The implication is that only one of these can be true, and so, the Bible must contain errors. But this is the fallacy of the false dilemma because there is no reason why the Bible cannot be both inspired by God and also written by men. God used men to write His Word (2 Peter 1:21). Another example of a false dilemma is when two words or names are synonymous: Is Reuben the son of Jacob (Genesis 35:22–23), or the son of Israel (Genesis 46:8)? Both are true because Israel is Jacob.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/09/29/contradictions-introduction
 
Last edited:

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
15 These were the sons Leah bore to Jacob in Paddan Aram, [c] besides his daughter (34)Dinah. These sons and daughters of his were thirty-three in all.

One could say that Dinah was excluded for some reason, and without her there is 33.
That doesn't work. First of all because Dinah was the only daughter listed, and it says quite specifically:

These sons and daughters of his were thirty-three in all.
Secondly, your equivocation of the word "besides" only works for the NIV.

The NAS Bible translates it as:

These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan-aram, with his daughter Dinah; all his sons and his daughters numbered thirty-three.
Genesis 46:15 - Passage*Lookup - New American Standard Bible - BibleGateway.com

Then the KJV says:

These be the sons of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob in Padanaram, with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty and three.
Genesis 46:15 - Passage*Lookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com

And then there is the NLT

These were the sons of Leah and Jacob who were born in Paddan-aram, in addition to their daughter, Dinah. The number of Jacob’s descendants (male and female) through Leah was thirty-three.
Genesis 46:15 - Passage*Lookup - New Living Translation - BibleGateway.com

Clearly the preposition in the statement is meant to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Also
Some alleged contradictions of the Bible are presented as a dilemma: “Was the Bible given by inspiration of God as indicated in 2 Timothy 3:16 or was it written by men as indicated in other passages (Luke 1:3; John 21:24)?” The implication is that only one of these can be true, and so, the Bible must contain errors. But this is the fallacy of the false dilemma because there is no reason why the Bible cannot be both inspired by God and also written by men. God used men to write His Word (2 Peter 1:21). Another example of a false dilemma is when two words or names are synonymous: Is Reuben the son of Jacob (Genesis 35:22–23), or the son of Israel (Genesis 46:8)? Both are true because Israel is Jacob.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...s-introduction
I don't understand your point. Jacob having another name is rational and plausible. Saying that 34=33 is not rational or plausible. There is no false dilemma here.
 
Last edited:

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
69,451
Reaction score
15,335
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It would seem that the daughter doesn't count. How does one have 33 sons and only one daughter?
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It would seem that the daughter doesn't count. How does one have 33 sons and only one daughter?
We know that the daughter counts because she is specifically included in the count:

These sons and daughters of his were thirty-three in all.
all the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty and three.
The number of Jacob’s descendants (male and female) through Leah was thirty-three.
There is no way to argue that the one daughter was excluded. If such were the case, it would simply read:
These sons of his were thirty-three in all.
Instead it specifically includes those with two x chromosomes. And since Dinah was the only one, she is specifically included.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It looks like a translation error to me. It lists thirty-three sons, then says that the "sons and daughters" number thirty-three. It seems to me that it was a list of sons, with Dinah mentioned as an aside, and then the word for "sons" was mistranslated.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It looks like a translation error to me. It lists thirty-three sons, then says that the "sons and daughters" number thirty-three. It seems to me that it was a list of sons, with Dinah mentioned as an aside, and then the word for "sons" was mistranslated.
You think all the different versions mistranslated it in the same way? Was it a divinely inspired mistranslation? Here it is in the original Hebrew, if you would care to translate it yourself:
טו אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי לֵאָה, אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְיַעֲקֹב בְּפַדַּן אֲרָם, וְאֵת, דִּינָה בִתּוֹ:
כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו, שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשָׁלֹשׁ
Genesis 46 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Mere speculation on my part. I don't speak Hebrew, I'm not Abrahamic, and I don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I agree with Rat
And it's likely not hte only mistranslation in the Bible.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I agree with Rat
And it's likely not hte only mistranslation in the Bible.
You could be right. As en example, all that nonsense Paul says about homosexuality being bad could be a mistranslation of the word Arsenokoitai, which according to the Sibylline texts refers to a child abductor, rather than a homosexual. The Greek word for homosexual was paiderasste.

And like when it says that God created the universe in "six days," that could easily be a mistranslation of "14 billion years."

And when it says "Let the land produce living creatures," that could be a mistranslation of "let the evolutionary process produce a variety of creatures through natural selection."

See, the problem with your "translation" theory is that it leads to the same place. An error in translation is still an error in the bible. Therefore, you no longer believe in the inerrancy of the bible. Regardless of whether the error lies in the original authorship or in the translation that you read, the error is still there. As a consequence, anything you read in the bible should be read with a degree of skepticism, as you don't know what has been mistranslated, and what has not.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Also, if it was mistranslated, that would mean that it had to have been mistranslated by every single one of the countless religious scholars who read the text in the original Hebrew. Otherwise, someone would have noticed.

And for everyone to have mistranslated the original Hebrew in the exact same way would imply a conspiracy of cosmic proportions, meaning that Satan himself was editing the Bible. At that point, it might be best not to give it any credence whatsoever, don't you think?
 
Top Bottom