What does this verse tell us about When Abraham was born

[Jay Ross]

On this forum, a number of people have been emphatic about the Age of Terah when Abraham was Born.

Does this verse help to confirm when Abraham was born?

Genesis 20:13: - 13 And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said to her, 'This is your kindness that you should do for me: in every place, wherever we go, say of me, "He is my brother."'"​

Particularly with respect to Stephen's claim in Acts 7.

Your thoughts please.

 

[Jay Ross]

perhaps I should have asked: -

Who should we believe, Abraham's statement in Genesis 20:13 or our interpretation of Stephen's words in Acts 7?

 

[theophilus]

perhaps I should have asked: -

Who should we believe, Abraham's statement in Genesis 20:13 or our interpretation of Stephen's words in Acts 7?

I don't understand the question. I don't see any contradiction between what Abraham said and what Stephen said, so we should believe both of them? And what does any of this have to do with how old Terah was when Abraham was born?

 

[Jay Ross]

I don't understand the question. I don't see any contradiction between what Abraham said and what Stephen said, so we should believe both of them? And what does any of this have to do with how old Terah was when Abraham was born?

A couple of months ago I was in a discussion where people were claiming that after Abraham's father had died, Abraham left Haran to go down to the Land of Canaan and they were suggesting that the father that Stephen was speaking about dying first, was Terah, and as such they then claimed that Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years old and not 70 years old as stated in Genesis 11:26 based on their interpretation of Acts 7:4.

perhaps I should have asked: -

Who should we believe, Abraham's statement in Genesis 20:13 or our interpretation of Stephen's words in Acts 7?

Which is true, and how do we justify our conclusion?

 

[Enoch111]

they then claimed that Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years old and not 70 years old as stated in Genesis 11:26 based on their interpretation of Acts 7:4.

Acts 7:4 has nothing to say about the birth of Abraham, or the age of Terah when Abram was born. What it tells us is that Abram left Haran when Terah died.

But this verse should be interpreted properly : And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.(Gen 11:26) We get the impression that the three sons were triplets when they were born, and that Abram was the oldest. But that is not necessarily correct. This verse may simply mean that those three brothers were born to Terah after he reached the age of 70.

Many believe -- correctly -- that Terah was 130 years old when Abram was born. The way they calculate this is that Terah was 205 years old when he died in Haran (Gen 11:32), and Abram left Haran at the same time at age 75: So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. (Gen 12:4)

Thus 205-75 = 130, which is Terah's age at the birth of Abram.

 

[Jay Ross]

Acts 7:4 has nothing to say about the birth of Abraham, or the age of Terah when Abram was born. What it tells us is that Abram left Haran when Terah died.

But this verse should be interpreted properly : And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.(Gen 11:26) We get the impression that the three sons were triplets when they were born, and that Abram was the oldest. But that is not necessarily correct. This verse may simply mean that those three brothers were born to Terah after he reached the age of 70.

Many believe -- correctly -- that Terah was 130 years old when Abram was born. The way they calculate this is that Terah was 205 years old when he died in Haran (Gen 11:32), and Abram left Haran at the same time at age 75: So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. (Gen 12:4)

Thus 205-75 = 130, which is Terah's age at the birth of Abram.

It all depends on our interpretation of the original source text from which this verse was translated.

Acts 7:4: - 4 Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran. And from there, when/after his father was dead, He moved him to this land in which you now dwell.​

It all depends on how we translate the Greek word, "μετὰ." The NKJV translated this word as "when" but the bible Hub Tools software suggests that this word should be translated as "after." Given this fluidity in how the Greek texts have been translated, the use of the word "when" implies that Abraham left Haran immediately his father had died, whereas the use of the word "after" implies that a number of years passed before Abraham left Haran after his father had died.

To claim that "Many believe -- correctly -- that Terah was 130 years old when Abram was born." is very much dependant on how we translate the Greek texts, and often the translation have been translated to confirm our preconceived ideas as how the events unfolded irrespective of whether the actual translation is correct or not.

Your tenant is "Acts 7:4 has nothing to say about the birth of Abraham, or the age of Terah when Abram was born. What it tells us is that Abram left Haran when Terah died." is a true statement, but that is because of the wrong manner in which you have understood the word "father" is under by Stephen.

If we believe that all of the Biblical scriptures are true, then it is our duty to ferret out how, what seems to be contrary statements in the scriptures, are both true.

In your interpretation of the scriptures with respect to when Abraham was born, you have had to discount one portion of the true record in preference for another portion of the scriptures to be understood in the manner that you are suggesting.

I believe that there is enough evidence in the Chronology of the Book of Genesis to confirm that Terah was 70 years old when Abraham was born and that Stephen was referencing the "father" of all of the people, as having died around 16 years before Abraham left Haran. Stephen was making a reference to Noah when he had spoken of Abraham's descendant father had died before he left Haran.

You are interpreting the scriptures to support your interpretation of them and are not allowing the scriptures to be interpreted correctly as you are claiming you are.

Shalom

 

[Willie T]

A couple of months ago I was in a discussion where people were claiming that after Abraham's father had died, Abraham left Haran to go down to the Land of Canaan and they were suggesting that the father that Stephen was speaking about dying first, was Terah, and as such they then claimed that Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years old and not 70 years old as stated in Genesis 11:26 based on their interpretation of Acts 7:4.



Which is true, and how do we justify our conclusion?

I believe THE APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM states that Abraham was born when his father was 60. (Admittedly, it has been a few years since I read that book.)

 

[Enoch111]

It all depends on our interpretation of the original source text from which this verse was translated.

Not really. There's no need to complicate matter. When Abram was 75 Terah was 205. Just do the math. And there is but one source text and that is the Masoretic text.

 

[DNB]

Hi Jay, excuse me if my information is not exhaustive on the issue, I only began looking into it when I read your post.
I must admit that after reading Genesis 11:26 I would expect, as is somewhat indicative of Scripture, that this would imply that Abram, Nahor and Haran were born in and around the time when Terah was 70. So then yes, if Terah died at 205, and Abram was 75 when he left Haran, and that Abram left Haran after Terah's death (Acts), there would be actually a 60 year discrepancy between when Terah conceived Abrahm.
I have no conclusion outside of capitulating and stating that Terah had Abram at 130. I don't like this, because it makes the assertion that Terah was 70 years as entirely pointless, if there is no reference point. For if he lived till 205, then obviously there was a time when became 70, or 75, 87, 102 and so on. It's a superfluous point, verging on frivolous and silly. And, I can't recall where the Bible does this elsewhere, in the same manner that it was defined in the entirety of Genesis 11. The account of Noah, Abraham & Sarah, Isaac, etc. all give dates that correspond to the event that is described in the same verse. At least, this is entirely the implication, as again, why even refer to a date if there allows such a discrepancy between the date and the event (almost double in the case of Terah and his sons).

The only thing that I can offer, is that there appears to be another anomaly in Stephen's history. He states that God appeared to Abram, telling him to leave his father's land, prior to reaching Haran. Whereas the Genesis account has God appearing to Abram for the first time, while he was in Haran. Sorry, I don't actually have a point here, outside of a suspicion that Stephen's account is somewhat loose or misinformed (Stephen's ignorance does not necessitate lack of inspiration on Luke's part). But, on the other hand, Acts does say that Stephen was full of wisdom and the Holy Ghost,...????

Acts 7:2-4
7:2. And he said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3. and said to him, 'LEAVE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR RELATIVES, AND COME INTO THE LAND THAT I WILL SHOW YOU.' 4. "Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. From there, after his father died, God had him move to this country in which you are now living.

Genesis 12:1-5
12:1. Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; 2. And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; 3. And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." 4. So Abram went forth as the LORD had spoken to him; and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5. Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, and the persons which they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan.

 

[Jay Ross]

I believe THE APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM states that Abraham was born when his father was 60. (Admittedly, it has been a few years since I read that book.)

In the Book of Jasher, chapter 7 verses 50-51, the account suggests that Terah was 70 years old when Abram was born. Copies of the Book of Jasher can be found at this link: - https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/7.htm and open Chapter 7 to read the above verses.

Shalom

 

[Jay Ross]

Hi Jay, excuse me if my information is not exhaustive on the issue, I only began looking into it when I read your post.
I must admit that after reading Genesis 11:26 I would expect, as is somewhat indicative of Scripture, that this would imply that Abram, Nahor and Haran were born in and around the time when Terah was 70. So then yes, if Terah died at 205, and Abram was 75 when he left Haran, and that Abram left Haran after Terah's death (Acts), there would be actually a 60 year discrepancy between when Terah conceived Abrahm.
I have no conclusion outside of capitulating and stating that Terah had Abram at 130. I don't like this, because it makes the assertion that Terah was 70 years as entirely pointless, if there is no reference point. For if he lived till 205, then obviously there was a time when became 70, or 75, 87, 102 and so on. It's a superfluous point, verging on frivolous and silly. And, I can't recall where the Bible does this elsewhere, in the same manner that it was defined in the entirety of Genesis 11. The account of Noah, Abraham & Sarah, Isaac, etc. all give dates that correspond to the event that is described in the same verse. At least, this is entirely the implication, as again, why even refer to a date if there allows such a discrepancy between the date and the event (almost double in the case of Terah and his sons).

The only thing that I can offer, is that there appears to be another anomaly in Stephen's history. He states that God appeared to Abram, telling him to leave his father's land, prior to reaching Haran. Whereas the Genesis account has God appearing to Abram for the first time, while he was in Haran. Sorry, I don't actually have a point here, outside of a suspicion that Stephen's account is somewhat loose or misinformed (Stephen's ignorance does not necessitate lack of inspiration on Luke's part). But, on the other hand, Acts does say that Stephen was full of wisdom and the Holy Ghost,...????

Acts 7:2-4
7:2. And he said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3. and said to him, 'LEAVE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR RELATIVES, AND COME INTO THE LAND THAT I WILL SHOW YOU.' 4. "Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. From there, after his father died, God had him move to this country in which you are now living.

Genesis 12:1-5
12:1. Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; 2. And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; 3. And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." 4. So Abram went forth as the LORD had spoken to him; and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5. Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, and the persons which they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan.

The Book of Jasher at the link given above, suggests that Abraham was around 50 years old when God entered into the Covenant with Abraham can be found in Chapter 12 verses 72-70 before Terah, Abraham Sahar and Lot left Ur of the Chaldeans to start the journey down to the Land of Canaan.

Giving an opinion based on the feelings of your waters is not enlightening at all.

When I was considering the Book of Jasher over 10 years ago, my sense then was that the Book of Jasher tended to provide confirmation of what was written in the Bible, but the embellishments in the stories recorded in the Book of Jasher did not, in my opinion, tended, to my way of thinking back then, help to inspire confidence in everything that was recorded in that book.

I also note that the Book of Jasher is mentioned twice in the Bible.

Shalom

 

[Jay Ross]

Not really. There's no need to complicate matter. When Abram was 75 Terah was 205. Just do the math. And there is but one source text and that is the Masoretic text.

You are welcome to hold to your opinion, but it is obnoxious for you to claim that your opinion is above reproach. It seems to me that you as usual simple clutch hold of flawed understandings to confirm your views.

 

[DNB]

The Book of Jasher at the link given above, suggests that Abraham was around 50 years old when God entered into the Covenant with Abraham can be found in Chapter 12 verses 72-70 before Terah, Abraham Sahar and Lot left Ur of the Chaldeans to start the journey down to the Land of Canaan.

Giving an opinion based on the feelings of your waters is not enlightening at all.

When I was considering the Book of Jasher over 10 years ago, my sense then was that the Book of Jasher tended to provide confirmation of what was written in the Bible, but the embellishments in the stories recorded in the Book of Jasher did not, in my opinion, tended, to my way of thinking back then, help to inspire confidence in everything that was recorded in that book.

I also note that the Book of Jasher is mentioned twice in the Bible.

Shalom

Ok, so now that we've concluded that the Book of Jasher is not a reliable source to establish accurate historicity, or doctrine of the Bible, we can preclude any further conversation about it. Which I did not even address.
And, I have absolutely no idea how you perceive the biblical facts that I offered, to be merely a 'feeling of my waters', ...whatever that means?

Either way, there are many inconsistencies throughout Scripture. I don't imagine that we'll ever resolve them all, as the manuscript tradition is very complex and mysterious to us at this time in history. Maybe in the future, more insight into the authorship and processes that took place will be revealed, but until then, there are many blind spots in the Bible.

 

[Jay Ross]

Ok, so now that we've concluded that the Book of Jasher is not a reliable source to establish accurate historicity, or doctrine of the Bible, we can preclude any further conversation about it. Which I did not even address.
And, I have absolutely no idea how you perceive the biblical facts that I offered, to be merely a 'feeling of my waters', ...whatever that means?

Either way, there are many inconsistencies throughout Scripture. I don't imagine that we'll ever resolve them all, as the manuscript tradition is very complex and mysterious to us at this time in history. Maybe in the future, more insight into the authorship and processes that took place will be revealed, but until then, there are many blind spots in the Bible.

I would disagree with this conclusion that "there are many blind spots in the bible." The blind spots all have been generated by the influence of Satan twisting man's understanding of the bible which creates theological division in our understanding of our relationship with God and the subsequent consequences that comes out of accepting as "Gospel" those misleading points of our adopted understanding.

The first misunderstanding that was introduced by Satan is recorded in Genesis 3 where Satan first suggested to Eve that God had sold a furphy to Adam in that God had told Adam that if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge that they would die the "second death" because of their disobedience of God's command. In other words, sinning against God makes us all a candidate to be judged and and found guilty where the consequences are that we will be "thrown" into the Lake of Fire.

Satan's planting of the seed of disbelief in Eve, meant that he had created a division between Eve and God where she had to prove to herself the "truth of the matter" without turning to God to confirm the truthfulness of Satan's claim that she would not die if she ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Abyss, where people would go upon their physical death and their bodies returning back to dust, in Genesis 1:2 the Bottomless Pit is described as being hidden from us because evil covered the opening face of the "deep"/abyss which was the place where sinners went to await their fate.

In Revelation 20, the Abyss/Bottomless Pit/Hades is removed from the earth and dispatched into the Lake of Fire to be no more, because sin after that point in time in the future would be no more as the remaining humanity would be deemed to be righteous.

Genesis 22:22-24 confirms for us that Abraham was indeed born to Terah when Terah was 70 years of age. But the confirmation is hidden within the story line being presented in this passage and our cultural understanding of the language in use during the time of Christ where the meaning of the words within the translation source texts have been modified by the "more modern language word meanings" like our understanding of the modern word "Father" has hidden the respect within the culture during Christ's First Advent with respect to the references to the Patriarchal "fathers" of the Israelites. The argument presented is that the New Testament writers and people were filled with the Holy Spirit whereas the Old Testament writers and people were not. Because of this belief that the Holy Spirit was not given to the Old Testament people and writers, the New Testament people and their writings can be believed as being more "true" that the writings contained in the Old Testament and therefore more precedence can be given to what is recorded in the New Testament than in the Old Testament as is recorded in Genesis 11:26.

The truth of the matter is that the lack of the Holy Spirit has lead people to the wrong conclusions during these more "modern" times since the scriptures were collected into the Christian sacred texts because of the principles of the Darwinian "improvements" that occurs over time in all things, which in this case is with respect to our understanding of the scriptures. That is, our understanding of the scriptures today is far better than during the time of Jesus's First Advent and as such our improved understanding should be believe more than what the context and meaning of the older source texts have presented.

This is one such case where this has and still is occurring.

Shalom

 

[DNB]

I would disagree with this conclusion that "there are many blind spots in the bible." The blind spots all have been generated by the influence of Satan twisting man's understanding of the bible which creates theological division in our understanding of our relationship with God and the subsequent consequences that comes out of accepting as "Gospel" those misleading points of our adopted understanding.

The first misunderstanding that was introduced by Satan is recorded in Genesis 3 where Satan first suggested to Eve that God had sold a furphy to Adam in that God had told Adam that if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge that they would die the "second death" because of their disobedience of God's command. In other words, sinning against God makes us all a candidate to be judged and and found guilty where the consequences are that we will be "thrown" into the Lake of Fire.

Satan's planting of the seed of disbelief in Eve, meant that he had created a division between Eve and God where she had to prove to herself the "truth of the matter" without turning to God to confirm the truthfulness of Satan's claim that she would not die if she ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Abyss, where people would go upon their physical death and their bodies returning back to dust, in Genesis 1:2 the Bottomless Pit is described as being hidden from us because evil covered the opening face of the "deep"/abyss which was the place where sinners went to await their fate.

In Revelation 20, the Abyss/Bottomless Pit/Hades is removed from the earth and dispatched into the Lake of Fire to be no more, because sin after that point in time in the future would be no more as the remaining humanity would be deemed to be righteous.

Genesis 22:22-24 confirms for us that Abraham was indeed born to Terah when Terah was 70 years of age. But the confirmation is hidden within the story line being presented in this passage and our cultural understanding of the language in use during the time of Christ where the meaning of the words within the translation source texts have been modified by the "more modern language word meanings" like our understanding of the modern word "Father" has hidden the respect within the culture during Christ's First Advent with respect to the references to the Patriarchal "fathers" of the Israelites. The argument presented is that the New Testament writers and people were filled with the Holy Spirit whereas the Old Testament writers and people were not. Because of this belief that the Holy Spirit was not given to the Old Testament people and writers, the New Testament people and their writings can be believed as being more "true" that the writings contained in the Old Testament and therefore more precedence can be given to what is recorded in the New Testament than in the Old Testament as is recorded in Genesis 11:26.

The truth of the matter is that the lack of the Holy Spirit has lead people to the wrong conclusions during these more "modern" times since the scriptures were collected into the Christian sacred texts because of the principles of the Darwinian "improvements" that occurs over time in all things, which in this case is with respect to our understanding of the scriptures. That is, our understanding of the scriptures today is far better than during the time of Jesus's First Advent and as such our improved understanding should be believe more than what the context and meaning of the older source texts have presented.

This is one such case where this has and still is occurring.

Shalom

Outside of the exegetical factor, which was the predominant point in your above argument, and more related to doctrinal issues, facts and figures are still obscure in many areas. These are the blind spots that I was referring to. Dating King's reigns, the year of birth of many of the main characters in the Bible, or other events, are not precise. Nor is the authorship of almost all the Canon. Even the definition of our Canon is not authorized. This relates to your initial OP.

I personally don't believe that we will find a resolve to all these extraneous issues. Mainly for just that reason, they are extraneous, and doctrine is not contingent upon their data being of one value, over another.

 

[Jay Ross]

Outside of the exegetical factor, which was the predominant point in your above argument, and more related to doctrinal issues, facts and figures are still obscure in many areas. These are the blind spots that I was referring to. Dating King's reigns, the year of birth of many of the main characters in the Bible, or other events, are not precise. Nor is the authorship of almost all the Canon. Even the definition of our Canon is not authorized. This relates to your initial OP.

I personally don't believe that we will find a resolve to all these extraneous issues. Mainly for just that reason, they are extraneous, and doctrine is not contingent upon their data being of one value, over another.

You may be right that this argument/discussion is extraneous and that doctrine is not contingent upon their data being one value over another, however with respect to our understanding the chronology of God's plan over time, flawed understandings like this one, where we are discussing the age of Terah when Abraham was born, becomes very important.

I also agree with you that the story telling accuracies does introduce errors into any chronology compiled by people. This is particularly true when we come to attempting to harmonise the respective reigns of the Northern and the southern kingdoms.

Where this becomes particularly important is in the myths that are told to our children in Sunday School based on fanciful ideas rather than actual facts, like the age of Isaac when he went with his father to be scarified on the hill, or when Jesus was taken down to Egypt because Herod had ordered the slaughter of male children under the age of 2 years old in Bethlehem. The resolving of these stories found in the scriptures does take some detective work to come to the right conclusion.

The actual year when Isaac was born to confirm, for Abraham, the Abrahamic Covenant Given by God to Abraham around 50 years earlier, puts in place for us the timeline of God's Salvation work for all of mankind. However an error of 60 years as to when Abraham and Isaac were born leads to an extrapolated error approaching 200 years today on the timeline of God's Salvation plan for mankind.

To reduce all error from our understanding of God's salvation timeline we need to have an understanding of the scriptures that does not introduce any errors into it over the whole span of God's plan.

A deliberately introduced error by Satan, immediately calls into play our doctrinal understanding of God's play book for the Salvation of all who will be drawn to God. The importance of these so called errors, on a personal level is insignificant, but on a corporate level, any introduced error become huge doctrinally as it calls into question the believability of the truthfulness of God.

Our doctrinal understanding of the scriptures is very important, and so far because of our "supposed" "Spirit filled" understanding of the scriptures our doctrinal errors in other areas is also huge.

Shalom

 

[DNB]

You may be right that this argument/discussion is extraneous and that doctrine is not contingent upon their data being one value over another, however with respect to our understanding the chronology of God's plan over time, flawed understandings like this one, where we are discussing the age of Terah when Abraham was born, becomes very important.

I also agree with you that the story telling accuracies does introduce errors into any chronology compiled by people. This is particularly true when we come to attempting to harmonise the respective reigns of the Northern and the southern kingdoms.

Where this becomes particularly important is in the myths that are told to our children in Sunday School based on fanciful ideas rather than actual facts, like the age of Isaac when he went with his father to be scarified on the hill, or when Jesus was taken down to Egypt because Herod had ordered the slaughter of male children under the age of 2 years old in Bethlehem. The resolving of these stories found in the scriptures does take some detective work to come to the right conclusion.

The actual year when Isaac was born to confirm, for Abraham, the Abrahamic Covenant Given by God to Abraham around 50 years earlier, puts in place for us the timeline of God's Salvation work for all of mankind. However an error of 60 years as to when Abraham and Isaac were born leads to an extrapolated error approaching 200 years today on the timeline of God's Salvation plan for mankind.

To reduce all error from our understanding of God's salvation timeline we need to have an understanding of the scriptures that does not introduce any errors into it over the whole span of God's plan.

A deliberately introduced error by Satan, immediately calls into play our doctrinal understanding of God's play book for the Salvation of all who will be drawn to God. The importance of these so called errors, on a personal level is insignificant, but on a corporate level, any introduced error become huge doctrinally as it calls into question the believability of the truthfulness of God.

Our doctrinal understanding of the scriptures is very important, and so far because of our "supposed" "Spirit filled" understanding of the scriptures our doctrinal errors in other areas is also huge.

Shalom

Honestly Jay, I will, with a certain amount of audacity, affirm that these 'discrepancies' are intended by God. I've often said that the plausibility of Noah's Ark, of Sodome & Gomorrah, the ten plagues and Red Sea crossing, raising the dead, the virgin birth, and so on, are stumbling blocks only for the skeptics. Let the unspiritual bicker about unspiritual things. I believe that God intended certain details an incongruities to remain in His Word, in order to separate the wise from the foolish.
A person that desires not to believe in God, will in a misguided fashion, exploit these perceived non-conformities by pointing out the unlikelihood of every male & female species of animal being able to persist in an ark for 400+- days. While, completely missing the point of how God was so displeased with man, His own creation, that He sought to destroy them.

I don't believe that the perceived errors that you pointed out, have the ramifications that you stated. But rather, and on the contrary, they unravel God's plan by both, revealing the faith of those who perceive the deeper meaning behind the events, and expose the defiance of those who take issue with only the superficial aspects of the Word.