JEST2ASK

I agree with your arguement but (correct me if I am wrong) you are saying that Matthew (whomever that historical person or persons) was not literially inspired to give the word of god but was acting as a normal human and the text reflects not the guiding of the Holy Spirit but other mundane factors .. if that is the case ...

you are neither a fundementalist or a biblical inerrantist .. so you (and un-named others) are not addressing the contridiction from the viewpoint it was offered ....

I enjoy the discourse and find it educational but it is adding onto the straight forward reading of the text (IMO) and not in the spirit of the orginal premise ...

Nuwanda

Only if it's still your favorite. You sound like a good guy, Stacey. You kind of remind me of myself when I was just coming out of Mormonism. I was so sure they were wrong that I relied on other sources to do my investigating for me, but nearly every Mormon I argued with could tell that I had never really read their texts, and so they usually disgarded my "airtight" arguments without a fight. If you do take the time to read the Bible, (assuming you haven't of course) not only will you be 10x sharper in your criticism, you will gain more credence with the Christians you argue with. It's as if I waged war against evolution knowing almost nothing about it. I'm easy to spot and easy to woop.

Cheers.

Nuwanda

I'm curious if you read post #10 thoroughly. I'm not arguing that there were literally 14 and not 17. There were 17, (18 if you include Athaliah, which the author of Chronicles doesn't and nobody's accusing him of contradicting) but I'm arguing that the other three were "shamed," as it were, due to Ahab's hatred of God, which Elijah says is why God would cut off Ahab and the males related to him (2 Kings 9:7-9). For this reason it would make perfect sense that the official temple records at the time of Matthew's writing would have excluded these names (again, this part is speculation). Therefore, if you accept this possibility then Matthew is neither lieing or contraditing but remaining faithful to the dictates of God.

I'm semi-fluent in both Greek and Hebrew. I'm interested to know what you believe the differance between the Hebrew "generation" and the Greek "generation" is in this particular context, and why you believe it is a change in meaning.

spin

Umm, so you have decided that four (or three generations can conveniently be omitted so that you can have fourteen generations in Matt as against 17 generations in Chr. There is no argument here. There is only post hoc conjecture. Kings finds nothing wrong with either J(eh)oash or Amaziah, as both "did what was right in the sight of the lord". The only person apparently finding them shamed is you. One doesn't need to wonder why. The simple discrepancy remains, despite this hasty attempt to justify why there is a discrepancy.

But just to add a further discrepancy, although says that the third group from the deportation to the messiah was fourteen generations, he doesn't list fourteen for Jeconiah belongs to the previous fourteen. (But then, a generation is that which is generated and the first fourteen list starts with that which Abraham generated, ie Isaac, so it too isn't fourteen.)


spin

Stacey Melissa

Hehe, I was just gonna say, you remind me a bit of myself in some respects.

I actually have read most of the Bible already, and I don't rely on others to do my investigating. Others do give me leads sometimes, though.

It's been six years since I did any serious study of 1 and 2 Kings in the OT course I took at university. I spent this morning going back over those books, and I still have a ways yet to go. FWIW, they seem much more interesting this time around. Contained within them is the material I'm gonna use to formulate my response. The main thing I'm gonna demonstrate is that the curse on Ahab's house didn't apply to Joash and Amaziah. That demonstration is gonna be quite a lengthy endeavor, so it may be awhile before you see it. Feel free to twiddle your thumbs.

Nuwanda

I encourage you to read 2 Kings 8:16-24. I appreciate that you believe I am "hasty" in my attempt to justify this "discrepancy," but your response is nothing short of your own charge. You hastily assume that there are only one of each of the names we are discussing here. There are doubles, and to make it more confusing, some of them have 2 spellings for their names. The above scripture will give you a starting point for your investigation and, if you are serious about this, you'll need to do the rest of the research on you own. I'll wait, have fun.

Nuwanda

I'll give you a head start like I did for Spin. Start with 2 Kings 8:16 then read all the way through to chapter 11. Make sure to account for multiple name spellings and watch for changes between both the kings of Judah and the kings of Israel. I'll be twiddling.

Stacey Melissa

Yeah, I spent a good 20 or 30 minutes just sorting out who was who, since names sometimes get repeated for different people and names also get spelled differently for the same person. Ugh. They really could've used surnames back then.

Nuwanda

I did too. It's not as if me or any other Christian sits around studying the "who begat who" stuff with any intense interest. It's terribly confusing. I'm sure it made sense to the ancient Jewish mind but in the internet age of quick info it's akin to literary morphine. I give you high kudos for even attempting it. In the end you will have done more in Biblical criticism than 90% of Christians I know.

spin

Why? We are dealing with later kings. You know, the ones supposed to have been shamed by the Ahab connection. J(eh)orum is in Matt's list, but he's a candidate for your shamed theory..

More hastiness on your part. You shouldn't read minds. You don't know that I assume any such thing. As a matter of fact. You are hastily wrong in your assumption about what I assume.

Ya don't say?

Here's what you said:
You make it clear who you are dealing with. Don't try to obfuscate. So, would you like to concoct some other reason why these names should have been left out, seeing as the shame approach doesn't work? OK, go for it.


spin