Magus55

And what does that have to do with God's warning? The corrupt people in Genesis that lived before the flood had no idea what to expect. They knew God was real though, and He told them He would destroy the world, yet they ignored it.

And iv'e still never seen "hard" evidence for the lack of a flood. Only assumptions based on faulty observations.

Magus55

The Sumerian king list for one.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html

winstonjen

Anything other than an apologetic misinformation site?

Magus55

Why, you all always use talk origins and SAB, both bias towards refuting parts, or the whole of the Bible.

Doctor X

Someone might want to grab Richard Carrier, for he has debunked the belief that one can reconcile the genealogies pretty effectively.

However, note no textual evidence for the claim for the "shift" in the genealogic progression.

--J.D.

WinAce

Magus, I didn't ask you to explain anything. Here's my post again:

I merely asked for your personal opinion as to how Jesus could have expressed himself more clearly if his goal was predicting his return in the 1st century while some of his followers were still alive.

Is that a question you can't address, or one you won't address because the honest answer you know deep down would be too damaging to even consider letting out?

ex-xian

Are my posts invisible? Unlike Winace, I don't think I've ever really discussed anything with you.

Peter Kirby

You might want to take into consideration these attempted rebuttals...no, I don't read the sites much, but know how to search...

best,
Peter Kirby

http://www.tektonics.org/ajinod_09.html
Jeremiah 22:30 states:

"This is what the Lord says; Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

Far from saying that Jeconiah will be childless, this verse acknowledges that Jeconiah will have/has children (offspring)! He is to be recorded as if childless because none of his descendants will receive an inheritance from him.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html
I personally am not convinced this 'Jeconiah' problem EVEN EXISTS, and here's why:

I don't think the prophecy in Jeremiah is referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME. The context of the passage seems to limit the scope to just his immediate descendants:
The phrase 'in his lifetime' (lit. "in his days"-yom) focuses the passage on the immediate future;
the "for" word connects the 'no man of his descendants' with the 'in his lifetime'--the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context;
the 'again' word ('od) is not the "big" FOREVER word: ad-olam or le-olam.
Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by Yahweh to raise up 'a righteous branch to David' --a promise of the continuing line of David! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate descendants of Jeconiah?).
So, if the prophecy of Jeconiah is NOT to be extended past his immediate descendants, as I have just argued, then Jim's problem evaporates.
EVEN IF the passage IS a longer-range prediction, the line THROUGH Jeconiah only comes to Joseph and not to Mary. The gene-stream stops physically at Joseph through the virgin birth. Therefore, Jeconiah, who is only mentioned in Matthew (the legal line to Joseph) doesn't 'pass on the blood'.
Now the issue about Shealtiel and Zerubbabel I find intriguing. The argument Jim makes here is that THEY are descendants of the 'bad Jeconiah' and THEY show up in BOTH the legal AND the physical lineage's of Jesus. And, if the prophecy in Jeremiah is taken to mean a long-range restriction (which I do NOT believe is the case, see above), then we clearly have a problem in the Lukan, physical/gene-stream lineage of Jesus.

But let me ask an impertinent question here. Why do we believe the S+Z (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel) of the two lineage's are THE SAME PEOPLE? Think about it:

They have different parents
They have different children.
They are descended from different sons of David.
Their chronological placements on a time line could differ by as much as a CENTURY! (depending on how the omissions in Matthew are accounted for, and on what the average age of child-bearing was.)
THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON ARE THEIR NAMES!
This can hardly be a strong argument for their identity:

Zerubbabel was a common name from the early Persian period (539-331bc.), as shown by cuneiform inscriptions from Babylonia (see ZPEB , V. 1057)
The genealogies themselves have numerous names that repeat WITHIN the genealogy (e.g. Joseph, Mattathias, Judah) without being the same individuals; These names could also be common names.
The names in the genealogies are standard, common, everyday names. We have NUMEROUS people named Levi, Amos, Nahum, etc. in the OT accounts. There is just NO REASON to associate the S+Z of Luke with the S+Z of Matthew. (And even the pattern of S-followed-by-Z doesn't carry much weight--families often honored prominent people this way.)
What this means is that the S+Z of Matthew are the S+Z of Jeremiah, and that the S+Z of Luke (whose genes DO reach to Jesus) are a different set, descended from Nathan and not through Solomon-thru-Jeconiah.

So, as I said at the beginning, I don't even see a problem here at all.

Jack the Bodiless

The one I tend to use is SAB contradiction 34, Are we punished for the sins of others?
Sure, the inerrantists will try to wriggle out of it, but it's easy to shoot them down just by re-quoting the verses they're choosing to ignore. And you can bring in a whole load of Biblical support for God's injustice, from "original sin" right through to the crucifixion. It opens up a big can of worms that simply can't be closed again.

Asha'man

So, what you are saying is that the text is clearly wrong? Thanks for proving my point!