Distraction

If one steps back and observes, one will see a commonality with all men, regardless of race, age or economic state. That point of commonality is "distraction". Of course, there are always exceptions, but in general, all men will have something to which they focus their attention, which draws them away from thoughts of eternity and immortality. Some men know and understand these concepts, but delivered choose to look elsewhere. Sometimes briefly, sometimes lengthy.
Other men have been raised from childhood to never think on these things and have developed into creatures of distraction, moving from one distraction to the next, never settling to focus on depth. On one hand, it could be argued that their state is not of their own doing, that they were raised from day one, to seek after the shallow it even the inane. But on the other hand, all men were created in the image of God and created to commune with him. Without excuse, all men are creatures of free will, inherently moved to sell out God.
I am not arguing that this distraction is necessarily bad. It, like any other option before us, can be used to help us or harm us. We must be mature and responsible and handled this freedom wisely. One could possibly relegated it to the same category as sleep. A necessity but only to be used as necessary.
And again, as I've said many times before, this must be attended to for ourselves and not others. What are we doing with our time? With what are we distracted? And for how long and how often? Do we use distraction to refresh and prepare for another round of progress? Or do we use distraction, over and over, to avoid reality? Ask yourself and be honest.

Time and the proper identification of literature

For many years I held to a literal interpretation of the chronologies of the Old Testament.  So often people will make of the mistake of limiting their interpretive options to two, either a literal understanding of Scripture, or a nonliteral.  But this is a false dichotomy.  We are not restricted to only two options.  As is the case with literature, you must read the particular genre within its own rules.  One does not read poetry literally.  If someone says that they only have eyes for one particular girl, this is not read in a scientific sense, as if their eyeballs are only functional when around the one specific female.

When one reads a cookbook, one does not do so for romantic reasons or with the goal of understanding the world better.  The Bible, in the same line of thought, is not just a book.  It is a collection of letters, histories, poetry, apocaplytics and instructions.  You have to know and understand what it is you are reading.  One thing I like to say, when responding to those who say things like, no one in their right mind would read the Bible literally, is this.  The Bible may speak of things scientific, but it is not a science book and it was not given to us to teach us science.  The point of speaking about creation is not to give a science lesson in Newtons laws or the such.  It is to communicate that God is the creator and we are his creatures.  There is a specific relationship between us.

This brings me to the chronologies found in Scripture.  When we understand that the chronologies were not given to be a science or sociological study, we can understand that we do not need to read them literally, in order to read them honestly.  First, the chronologies were given to communicate that mankind has been descending from the singular Adam and that the sinful nature that we have inherited from is really truly part of the nature of man.  Second, the chronologies communicate that Jesus is truly a man.  A living, breathing, from the line of David, man.  He was not a ghost, a literary figure or a creative collection from various peoples imaginations.

So ultimately, we can read the chronologies in Scripture as chronologies but because they are not communicating scientific fact, we do not need them to be generationally succinct. There may be gaps.