LXX / Vetus Latina as per Julius Africanus : Pre-Flood Period 2262 Years

In other words, there is no problem of where Methuselah was when the Flood came — he was already dead.

The following table also takes into account the overlapping of the generations, after each it is marked who were living in their lifespans (in some cases, the overlap is only for a few years of the younger one's life, but that's rare).

Adam	1 — 930	Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel
Seth	230 — 1142	Adam Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch
Enos	435 — 1340	Adam Seth Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala
Cainan	625 — 1535	Adam Seth Enos Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Lamech
Maleleel	795 — 1690	Adam Seth Enos Cainan Jared Enoch Mathusala Lamech Noe
Jared	960 — 1922	Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel Enoch Mathusala Lamech Noe
Enoch	1122 — 1487	Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech
Mathusala	1287 — 2256	Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Lamech Noe Sem
__________________________________________
Lamech	1454 — 2207	Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Noe Sem
Noe	1642 — 2592	Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech Sem
Sem, Ham, Japheth	2142	Mathusala Lamech Noe
Flood,	2242	Mathusala!
__________________________________________
Lamech	1474 — 2227	Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Noe Sem
Noe	1662 — 2612	Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech Sem Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala | Heber
Sem, Ham, Japheth	2162	Mathusala Lamech Noe Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala | Phaleg
Flood,	2262

Is there a specific reason to believe the reading of Julius Africanus is correct? Check out this one:

Dating Methuselah's Death: Pre or Post Flood? with Henry B. Smith Jr.
Associates for Biblical Research | 8 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwPmoxrK04

Flood,	2262
Noah	pre-Flood — 350	1662 — 2612	Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech Sem Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala | Heber
Sem	pre-Flood — 502	2164 — 2764	Mathusala Lamech Noe Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala Heber | Phaleg
Arphaxad	2 — 537	2264 — 2799	Noe Sem [(II) Cainan] Sala Heber Phaleg | Ragau
__________________________________________
(II) Cainan	137 — 597	2399 — 2859	Noe Sem Arphaxad Sala Heber Phaleg Ragau
Sala	267 — 727	2529 — 2989	Noe Sem Arphaxad (II) Cainan Heber Phaleg Ragau
Heber	397 — 801	2659 — 3063	Sem Arphaxad (II) Cainan Sala Phaleg Ragau Seruch
Phaleg	531 — 870	2793 — 3132	Arphaxad (II) Cainan Sala Heber Ragau Seruch
Ragau	661 — 1000	2923 — 3262	Sala Heber Phaleg Seruch Nachor
Seruch	793 — 1123	3055 — 3385	Heber Phaleg Ragau Nachor Thara
Nachor	923 — 1227	3185 — 3489	Ragau Seruch Nachor Thara
Thara	1102 — 1307 / 1377 + ?	3364 — 3569 / 3639 + ?	Seruch Nachor Thara
Abram, Nachor and Arrhan	1172	3434	Nachor Thara
__________________________________________
Sala	137 — 597	2399 — 2859	Noe Sem Arphaxad Sala Heber Phaleg Ragau
Heber	267 — 671	2529 — 2933	Noe Sem Arphaxad Sala Phaleg Ragau Seruch
Phaleg	401 — 740	2663 — 3002	Sem Arphaxad Sala Heber Ragau Seruch
Ragau	531 — 870	2793 — 3132	Arphaxad Sala Heber Phaleg Seruch Nachor
Seruch	663 — 993	2925 — 3255	Heber Phaleg Ragau Nachor Thara
Nachor	793 — 997 ? / 1097 ?	3055 — 3259 ? / 3359 ?	Ragau Seruch Thara
Thara	872 — 1075 / 1145 + ?	3134 — 3337 / 3407 + ?	Seruch Nachor
Abram, Nachor and Arrhan	942	3204	Seruch Nachor Thara

There are two discrepancies between the standard version of the LXX and the one involved in the Roman Martyrology. That one has no Second (II) Cainan and Nachor begets at 79 rather than 179. I think both are textually attested in manuscripts we have, but even if this were not the case, patristic witness to this version would be sufficient, and we have that insofar that Julius Africanus, whose work is the basis of the Roman Martyrology as to distance between Creation, Flood and Birth of Abraham (except St. Jerome "corrected" the first distance from 2262 to 2242) gives as the latter distance, not 1172 or 1072, as per with a (II) Cainan, and also not 1042, as per without him, but with Nachor begetting Thara at 179, but 942, as per no (II) Cainan and as per Nachor begetting Thara at 79.

These details can be found here, under the pen of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:

Biblical chronogenealogies
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Journal of Creation 17(3):14–18, December 2003
https://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies

Obviously, this allows Abraham to have spoken to Seruch, who, in Josue 24:2, unlike possibly his son Nachor, certainly his grandson Thara, is not mentioned as an idolater. Abraham had access to pure doctrine and to the historical traditions as preserved within pure doctrine, including in the LXX chronology.

I think someone may have prayed over my getting confronted with this problem of Methuselah's "remaining years after the Flood" in the LXX, and perhaps also reconfronted with the quip, very popular among "Catholic" clergy in Paris, that Abraham was born into a family of idolaters, so that, whatever he received as traditions from the family would have to be "pagan mythology" by definition.

Even if that had been true, it would not have automatically made the traditions historically incorrect. St. Augustine respects the tradition on how Rome was founded and only in theology (about the origin of Romulus) markedly differs from the worshippers of Mars and of Romulus. We also tend to accept as historical the life of Siddharta Gautama, and differ from Buddhists only in theology (including but not limited to this man's supposed pre-existences in previous reincarnations). But, as said, it is not even true. However, some clergy over here would probably be in their 90's and struck by Alzheimer be incapable of taking my replies into account, nevertheless, they are for some reason allowed to guide younger people with healthier minds about what to say about my Young Earth Creationist position. I heard this objection 10 years ago, or more. I answered it pretty quickly too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Dominica in Albis
7.IV.2024