lee_merrill

Yes, I agree, I was only addressing the contention that the Genesis genealogies were intended to be exhaustive...

Well, this is still another topic, and if you all would like to discuss this, you may open another thread!

Regards,
Lee

noah

Hi Lee,

I took you up on your suggestion and opened up a thread rergarding JCs alleged desendency from David. As you will see, I have reposted the same two questions to you there that I have posted to you here. I assume that you felt it more appropriate to discuss these issues in a separate thread rather than post them here where they should be discussed.

Just to refresh our readers' minds I will reiterate my questions to you.

1)Why do you believe that JC was descended from David when the Jews do not?

2)What do you know about Jewish texts and traditions that Jews do not?

I look forward to hearing from you.

noah

Johnny Skeptic

You still don't get it, Lee. Whether there is one geneaology or two genealogies, or even if both genealogies can be harmonized, it doesn't make any difference at all. If you wish to claim that there is not a contradiction between the genealogies, for the sake of argument, I will agree with. Now then, how is that useful to Christians?

lee_merrill

See you in the other thread, then...

Blessings,
Lee

JoeWallack

JW:
Reasons why "Matthew" intended to present a Complete Genealogy:


1) "Matthew" used "Begat" which is never used in a Greek Genealogy known to Skip Generations:

The definition of γεννάω from BDAG:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...78#post3094678

Note that the priMary definition from BDAG is immediate parent procreation and this is how BDAG has classified Matthew 1.2-20. I don't believe there is a single example above of γεννάω being used with "telescoping" (deliberate omissions) of generations.

So "Father of " would have been the proper choice if Generations were Intentionally Skipped.

Hebrews has the word "begotten" stating that all were begotten from one man. This is a minority usage of the root word. When the meaning of the word is other than the primary meaning it usually has a strong figurative sense. Even if the Hebrews example was a Genealogy it would still be the exception and it would still be probable that "Matthew's" use of "begat" indicates immediate parent. However, the Hebrew's use is not a Genealogy anyway.


2) "Matthew" Explicitly says there were 14 Generations 3 times.


3) "Matthew" describes the Generations as "All".

The Greek of 1:17:

"πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ ἈβÏ?αὰμ ἕως Δαυὶδ γενεαὶ δεκατ�*σσαÏ?ες καὶ ἀπὸ Δαυὶδ ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος γενεαὶ δεκατ�*σσαÏ?ες καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ ΧÏ?ιστοῦ γενεαὶ δεκατ�*σσαÏ?ες"

Note that "πᾶσαι" (all) is the first word on the left.

Now for usage in the Christian Bible: {el}"�*ᾶσαι"{/} 46 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th ed., with GRAMCORD(TM) Greek New Testament Alpha Morphological Database and McReynolds English Interlinear (16 occurrences in 14 articles)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...78#post3094678
‬
Most of the uses of "πᾶσαι" above are literal with identification of individual components and their complete and unified inclusive relationship to the total. A few uses are figurative qualifying the relationship to only those individual components that are present.

And BDAG (it's my BDAG Baby):

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...78#post3094678

Note a primary general meaning of "pert. to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every, any". Specifically, BDAG has categorized 1:17 as "β. w. a noun in the pl., w. the art. all ×? . w. substantives: πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί Mt 1:17".


4) Raymond Brown, who wrote the classic in the field, The Birth Of The Messiah, sez "Matthew" did not intentionally skip.


5) No Early Church Father (you know, the guys who selected "Matthew" in the first place and who you believe are a direct link to you know who) claimed skipped Generations. The Implications from their writings is that they understood a Complete Genealogy was being presented.

Here are related excerpts:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...78#post3094678


6) The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" at the Beginning of the Genealogy Implies that this is intended to be a Complete Genealogy.

This presentation Implies an "official" record and an official record is more likely to be complete than a list with no claim or Implication of being official.

The best parallel to 1:1 in the LXX is Genesis 5:1. Let's take a look at the Greek:

Matthew
The book (βίβλος)
of the generation (γεν�*σεως)

Genesis
This is the book (βίβλος)
of the generations (γεν�*σεως)

Of all the Genealogies in the Jewish Bible Genesis 5:1 gives the strongest appearence of intending to be a complete Genealogy with all the information included with the Names. The Implication is that "Matthew" likewise Intended a complete Genealogy.


7) Jesus' complete Genealogy isn't listed anywhere else so why abbreviate? Wouldn't a Believer Reader prefer a Complete list?



8) Many Individual Errors can be demonstrated in "Matthew's" Genealogy such as:

"Matthew" has 4 generations (Hezron, Ram, Amminadab and Nahshon) in his Genealogy for a time period that according to the Jewish Bible was well over 430 years.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_1:3

the use of "Aram" at 1:4.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_1:4

Chronological impossibility of Rachab being married to Salmon.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_1:5

making it Likely that "Matthew" either had an Intentional disregard for accuracy or at least was Negligent in scholarship.


9) There are many General reasons to Doubt Accuracy in "Matthew's" Genealogies -

- 1) "Matthew" primarily consists of Impossible claims so making an Inaccurate genealogy would be relatively unimportant to the Author.

- 2) Christianity "discouraged" Critical Commentary until relatively recently.

- 3) Lack of supposed X-Hand/Foot Witness Testimony for Genealogies compared to main narrative describing people who knew Jesus Christ once he was Jesus Christ. "From Moses unto Moses there Arose None unto Moses. From Jesus unto Christ, there arose none."

- 4) Lack of coordination between the Remarkable claimed circumstances of The Genealogy/Infancy and the Un-remarkable description of Jesus' origin/origins in the rest of The Gospel.

- 5) "Jesus Christ" as a name is only used by "Matthew" in the Genealogy/Infancy. Using "Jesus Christ" as a name is generally thought of as a Later development in Christianity. So its use in the Genealogy suggests that the Genealogy is from a later Christianity than the rest of the Gospel.


Lee, this than is my Argument as it stands now. Since you currently have not made an Argument I have the better Argument. Where I think you've made a point worthy of discussion, such as Hebrews, I've incorporated it. Where I think your objection is Nonsense, such as "All Significant Generations", I have not since that Type of Argument, not only posturing what the Text doesn't say but taking a position Contradicted by the Textual meaning, deserves No respect and only distracts from the discussion. You of course are free to make your own Argument and make this Type of decision for yourself.

Since you have not Constructed an Argument at this point I Am going to be considering the Possibility that it is Intentional (you understand the weakness of your position) or Unintentional (you are Incapable of constructing an Argument). Either of these Possibilities are secondary to my Argument but do help explain your Position or lack of one. Let me summarize this so I'm sure you'll understand:

I'm considering the Possibility that you are being Dishonest and/or Stupid here.

This Thread is also for Skeptics here. When dealing with someone like Lee, Summarize your Argument in every Post and adjust as necessary based on his reponses. And insist that he present his own Argument.



Joseph


"Remember Jerry. it's not a Lie if you really Believe it's true" - George Costanza

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Johnny Skeptic

May I ask what difference it makes whether we have one genealogy or two genealogies, and what difference it makes whether or not the two genealogies can be harmonized? Assuming that all that we had was Mary's genealogy, I challenge Christians to reasonably prove that her genealogy can be traced back to David. In addition, even if her genealogy could be reasonably traced back to David, how would that benefit Christians?

lee_merrill

Well, I have actually made responses to these points, which have gone unanswered, so I will bow out now, and leave any conclusions as the proverbial exercise to the (possibly also merely proverbial) readers...

Blessings,
Lee

JoeWallack

When you say Goodbye, it doesn't mean Forever...



JW:
Okay. I think we can rule out "Stupid". Maybe your answers will be better now not being here.

Now let's give Lee another "DiffiCulty" to deal with in "Matthew's" Genealogy since his words say "No, no, no." but his track record says, "Yes, yes, yes.":

All ASV -

Matthew 1:6

"and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah;"

Compare to Luke 3:31:

"the [son] of Melea, the [son] of Menna, the [son] of Mattatha, the [son] of Nathan, the [son] of David," (ASV)

Per "Matthew" the lyine goes through "Solomon".

Per "Luke" the line goes through Nathan.

Note that 1 Kings 11 (ASV) created uncertainty as to continuation of the Kingdom through Solomon:

"26 And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, a servant of Solomon, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow, he also lifted up his hand against the king.

27 And this was the reason why he lifted up his hand against the king: Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breach of the city of David his father.

28 And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor; and Solomon saw the young man that he was industrious, and he gave him charge over all the labor of the house of Joseph.

29 And it came to pass at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; now Ahijah had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field.

30 And Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces.

31 And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces; for thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee;

32 (but he shall have one tribe, for my servant David's sake and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel);

33 because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon; and they have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and mine ordinances, as did David his father.

34 Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life, for David my servant's sake whom I chose, who kept my commandments and my statutes;

35 but I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes.

36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a lamp alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.

37 And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel.

38 And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that which is right in mine eyes, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee, and will build thee a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee.

39 And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever."


JW:
Nathan was the Head Prophet during David's reign:

2 Samuel 7 (ASV):

"1 And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and Jehovah had given him rest from all his enemies round about,

2 that the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.

3 And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thy heart; for Jehovah is with thee.

4 And it came to pass the same night, that the word of Jehovah came unto Nathan, saying,

5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith Jehovah, Shalt thou build me a house for me to dwell in?"


JW:
So we have possible reasons why "Matthew" and "Luke" place the line of Jesus through different sons of David:

1) Solomon was in the line of Kings but disloyal to God.

2) Nathan was in the line of Head Prophets and loyal to God.

"Matthew", with more of a Jewish outlook, may have preferred to stay with the Kingly line, while "Luke", with more of a Pagan outlook, may have preferred to change to the Head Prophet line. Once again, possible reasons for differences in the Genealogies are not explanations of defenses against error, they are explanations of the cause of the error.



Joseph

"And I don't like the begats in the bathroom." - King Richard

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Johnny Skeptic

In typical fashion, Lee Merrill has left yet another thread so that he will not have to embarrass himself anymore than he already has. He conveniently avoided replying to my previous post, which was as follows:

JoeWallack

JW:
Now let's give Lee another "DiffiCulty" to deal with in "Matthew's" Genealogy since his words say "No, no, no." but his track record says, "Yes, yes, yes." and his answers have gotten better since he hasn't been here:

A dose of Truthiness from the Blessed Vaults of EW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_1:7

All ASV -

Matthew 1:7

"and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;"

To my honored Teacher Rabbi Maimonides as I lay (what's left of) your Tormentor at your feet.

Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Asaph� instead of “Asa� who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Asaph�. "Asaph" was a famous Psalmist so "Matthew" appears to have either confused him with King Asa or again simply copied an existing error in the Greek.

Now let's test drive a special option Peter Kirby has installed here, the HTML Bible by verse:

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus -
σολομων δε εγεννησεν τον Ï?οβοαμ Ï?οβοαμ δε εγεννησεν τον αβια αβια δε εγεννησεν τον ασα

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus -
σολομων δε εγεννησεν τον Ï?οβοαμ Ï?οβοαμ δε εγεννησεν τον αβια αβια δε εγεννησεν τον ασα

Byzantine Majority -
σολομων δε εγεννησεν τον Ï?οβοαμ Ï?οβοαμ δε εγεννησεν τον αβια αβια δε εγεννησεν τον ασα

Alexandrian -
σολομων δε εγεννησεν τον Ï?οβοαμ Ï?οβοαμ δε εγεννησεν τον αβια αβια δε εγεννησεν τον ασαφ

Hort and Westcott -
σολομων δε εγεννησεν τον Ï?οβοαμ Ï?οβοαμ δε εγεννησεν τον αβια αβια δε εγεννησεν τον ασαφ


JW:
"Asa"/"Asaph" is the last word of the sentence. Note that TR has "Asa" and WH has "Asaph". Raymond Brown, The International Critical Commentary and UBS confirm "Asaph" as likely original. From A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Bruce M. Metzger:

"1.7–8 Ἀσάφ, Ἀσάφ {B} It is clear that the name “Asaphâ€? is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts, for the agreement of Alexandrian (×? B) and other witnesses (f 1 f 13 700 1071) with Eastern versions (cop arm eth geo) and representatives of the Western text (Old Latin mss and D in Luke [D is lacking for this part of Matthew]) makes a strong combination. Furthermore, the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83) was confused with that of Asa the king of Judah (1 Kgs 15.9 ff.), would have been to correct the error, thus accounting for the prevalence of Ἀσά in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus.1 Although most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting Ἀσάφ, Lagrange demurs and in his commentary prints Ἀσά as the text of Matthew. He declares (p. 5) that “literary criticism is not able to admit that the author, who could not have drawn up this list without consulting the Old Testament, would have taken the name of a psalmist in place of a king of Judah. It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that Ἀσάφ is a very ancient [scribal] error.â€? Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew."

On a related note Origen's Hexapla from the early third century may have been an important source of correction for this type of name error for later Greek manuscripts as you wouldn't need to know Hebrew here to observe that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian all used "Asa" instead of "Asaph" for the genealogy in the Jewish Bible. Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time.

Now let's look at the Hebrew Genealogy for "Asa":

1 Chronicles 3:10

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a03.htm

" ×™ וּבֶן-שְ×?לֹמֹה, רְחַבְעָ×?; ×?ֲבִיָּה בְ�*וֹ ×?ָסָ×? בְ�*וֹ, יְהוֹשָ×?פָט בְּ�*וֹ. 10 And Solomon's son was Rehoboam; Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son; "

" ×?ָסָ×? " (Asa) is the 4th Hebrew word from the left.

Now the Hebrew Narrative:

1 Kings 15:8

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a15.htm

" ×— וַיִּשְ×?כַּב ×?ֲבִיָּ×? ×¢Ö´×?-×?ֲבֹתָיו, וַיִּקְבְּרוּ ×?ֹתוֹ בְּעִיר דָּוִד; וַיִּמְלֹךְ ×?ָסָ×? בְ�*וֹ, תַּחְתָּיו. {פ} 8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David; and Asa his son reigned in his stead. "

" ×?ָסָ×? " (Asa) is the 3rd Hebrew word from the left.

We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asa" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asa" was a relatively important King.

Now let's search the Hebrew for "Asaph" by Genealogy:

1 Chronicles 6

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a06.htm

" כד וְ×?ָחִיו ×?ָסָף, הָעֹמֵד עַל-יְמִי�*וֹ--×?ָסָף בֶּן-בֶּרֶכְיָהוּ, בֶּן-שִ×?מְעָ×?. 24 And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand; even Asaph the son of Berechiah, the son of Shimea; "

" ×?ָסָף " (Asaph) is the fifth Hebrew word from the left and differs from "Asa" with the last letter being " ×£ " instead of " ×? ".

Now by Narrative:

1 Chronicles 16

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a16.htm

" ×” ×?ָסָף הָרֹ×?ש×?, וּמִשְ×?�*ֵהוּ זְכַרְיָה; ×™Ö°×¢Ö´×™×?ֵל וּשְ×?מִירָמוֹת וִיחִי×?ֵל וּמַתִּתְיָה וֶ×?ֱלִי×?ָב וּבְ�*ָיָהוּ וְעֹבֵד ×?ֱדֹ×? וִיעִי×?ֵל, בִּכְלֵי �*ְבָלִי×? וּבְכִ�*ֹּרוֹת, וְ×?ָסָף, בַּמְצִלְתַּיִ×? מַשְ×?מִיעַ. 5 Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obed-edom, and Jeiel, with psalteries and with harps; and Asaph with cymbals, sounding aloud; "

" ×?ָסָף " (Asaph) is the first Hebrew word on the right.

We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asaph" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asaph" was also a relatively important person.

Now let's look at the Greek Genealogy for "Asa":

1 Chronicles 3:10

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%...ter=3&verse=10

1 Chronicles "3:10 υἱοὶ Σαλωμων Ροβοαμ Αβια υἱὸς α�τοῦ Ασα υἱὸς α�τοῦ Ιωσαφατ υἱὸς α�τοῦ"

"Ασα" (Asa) is in the middle. Note that the LXX has the correct name here per the Hebrew Bible.

Now the Greek Narrative:

1 Kings 15:8

http://www.zhubert.com/bible

"15:8 καὶ á¼?κοιμήθη Αβιου μετὰ τῶν πατ�*Ï?ων αá½?τοῦ á¼?ν Ï„á¿· εἰκοστῷ καὶ τετάÏ?τῳ ἔτει τοῦ ΙεÏ?οβοαμ καὶ θάπτεται μετὰ τῶν πατ�*Ï?ων αá½?τοῦ á¼?ν πόλει Δαυιδ καὶ βασιλεÏ?ει Ασα υἱὸς αá½?τοῦ ἀντ αá½?τοῦ"

Again, the correct word "Ασα" (Asa) 5th word from the end.

Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Genealogy:

1 Chronicles 9

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%...ter=9&verse=15

"1 Chronicles 9:15 καὶ ΒακβακαÏ? καὶ ΑÏ?ης καὶ Γαλαλ καὶ Μανθανιας υἱὸς Μιχα υἱοῦ ΖεχÏ?ι υἱοῦ Ασαφ"

"Ασαφ" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the last word.

Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Narrative:

1 Chronicles 16

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%...ter=16&verse=5

"5 Ασαφ á½? ἡγοÏ?μενος καὶ δευτεÏ?εÏ?ων αá½?Ï„á¿· ΖαχαÏ?ιας Ιιηλ ΣεμιÏ?αμωθ Ιιηλ Ματταθιας Ελιαβ καὶ Βαναιας καὶ Αβδεδομ καὶ Ιιηλ á¼?ν á½€Ï?γάνοις νάβλαις καὶ κινÏ?Ï?αις καὶ Ασαφ á¼?ν κυμβάλοις ἀναφωνῶν"

Again, "Ασαφ" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the first word.

And now, the meaning of the names:

http://www.ccel.org/bible_names/bible_names.html#A

"Asa, physician; cure"

"Asaph, who gathers together"

Quite the difference.

One more thing. The usual Christian Apology is that ancient documents show variation in the Greek spelling of "Asa's" name so "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" is just a variation and not a mistake. As near as I can tell most of these "ancient documents" are still hiding in a cave somewhere with the WMDs waiting to be discovered. Josephus though, does use a variation himself:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...=8:section=290

"[290] Ho de tôn Hierosolumôn basileus Asanos"

"Asanos" instead of "Asa". However, "Asanos" is still not "Asaph" and the LXX "Matthew's" readers would have been referring to still had "Asa". Maybe the Christians changed Joshepus here to support "Matthew". Just kidding!


So in Summary, the evidence that "Matthew's" apparent use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) According to the Masoretic text "Asa" was the correct name for the genealogy "Matthew" was trying to present and the textual evidence above indicates that "Matthew's" "Asaph" was likely original.

2) The detailed narrative from the Jewish Bible also confirms "Asa" as correct.

3) The LXX also has "Asa" for the genealogy and narrative which is further evidence that the Greek "Ασα" was the correct name here.

4) "Asa" and "Asaph" are two different names in the original Hebrew used to refer to different people in the Jewish Bible. This time both refer to relatively important people. Asa, the good king and Asaph, chief Psalmist of David.

5) There is no evidence in the Jewish Bible that "Asa" and "Asaph" were anything other than two distinct names.

6) Subsequent Christian copyists gradually changed the name from "Asaph" to "Asa" implying they recognized that "Asaph" was an error.

7) A one letter difference is a big difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew.

8) There are many more examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy.

9) Origen confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts.

10) The meaning of "Asa" and "Asaph" in Hebrew is different.

11) Messianic Apologist Schmuel confesses to us that if "Asaph" is original then 1:7 is in error.


The evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is not an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) It's possible that "Matthew" originally wrote "Asa".

2) "Asa" and "Asaph" differ by one letter in the Hebrew and Greek so it's possible they could refer to the same person.

3) Josephus has a variant spelling of "Asa" so it's possible that variant spellings at the time were an acceptable convention.


In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that "Asa" is the correct name at this point in the genealogy and "Matthew's" use of a different name ("Asaph") is an Error. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Asa" and "Asaph" referred to the same person then "Matthew's" use of "Asa" would still have been a better choice and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect".



Joseph

King - The only one who didn't have shit all over him - Monty Python

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page