Magus55

I never claimed translations were. I believe the original is. Try to keep up would ya?

rlogan

Don't forget the lineage in Chronicles. There was a thread on that here a few weeks ago.

This original sin business is so important I'd think there'd be more attestation to it.

Gooch's dad

Does this Henry Morris *have* the original documents? If so, then his explanation is a fallacy of special pleading. He has no grounds for claiming that it doesn't say "son of Heli" other than that he doesn't like it.

Big deal. So "other commentaries" claim to know the "inended meaning". How can they know the intended meaning? If that was the intended meaning, why didn't the text simply mention Mary?

Magus, surely you can do better than that?

Magus55

The text didn't mention Mary because it was written in Hebrew, and in Jewish tradition, the man is mentioned in place of the woman.

Kosh

"intended"? Do you mean that the word itself was "son-in-law", or that the word used is actually "son", and that somebody just decided it was "intended" to be son-in-law? What is the evidence to support this (other than it being needed for the apologetic?).

Also, which "original hebrew" are you referring to? The gospels were written in greek

List the exact "commentaries" references which back this up.

If you do not respond, we will have to take that as meaning that you cannot respond with substantial proof to back up your claims.

Kosh

McGarvey and Pendleton's Fourfold Gospel Commentary:
"This may mean that Jesus was grandson of Heli, or that Joseph was counted as a son of Heli because he was his son-in-law"

Sounds like this whole line of reasoning is little more than speculation, and therefore must be relegated to "apologetic".

Godless Wonder

Please. The man who had nothing to do with it was mentioned instead of the woman. But all the other men in the lineage were mentioned as "son of . . . ", and not "son in law of . . . ", etc. yet the phrase "son in law" is scattered throughout the Bible, so at the very last point in the lineage, they substitute Joseph for Mary.

The phrase "son in law" is mentioned at least 10 times in fact:

grep -i 'son in law' bible12.txt
answered, Samson, the son in law of the Timnite, because he
father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a
father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the
son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?
well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not
he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal
son in law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in
the son in law of the house of Ahab.
the son in law of Shechaniah the son of Arah; and his son
priest, was son in law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I

Your argument is very weak.

Doctor X

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Also, they were not written in Hebrew.

Next. . . .

--J.D.

exile

This always seems an odd concept to me.

"original sin". Is this meant to have originated with Adam and Eve? That is, were they CREATED with original sin, which I take to be, the capacity to sin. Clearly if sin is "disobeying God's orders" then both Adam and Eve DID sin. Therefore, original sin predates the "fall" and is not therefore due to it. They couldn't have sinned if they did not have the capacity to do so! The expulsion from Eden, and the subsequent misery of life on earth, is therefore the punishment for Adam and Eve's sin, not the genetic predisposition to sin, which was there in Adam and Eve from the beginning. Seems unfair but then so was the flood and many other of God's supposed actions.

Of course with Jesus the Church ties itself in knots trying to work out how a sinless being can arise from the union from God and a human being with original sin. One answer might have been that Jesus descended from God alone (ie an egg, (why should God not have male and female aspects) implanted in Mary's womb) - but instead Catholic tradition has it that Mary herself was sinless. Not sure how far back this sinlessnes is meant to go!
Of course the identification of sin with sex is ludicrous and reeks of St Paul.

fr8trainman

The Christian Original Sin/Sacrefice/Resurrection has never made sense to me. Christians have to assume so many things that aren't in their own scripture. So many seem so willing to take anything their preacher/leaders tell them without question.

There are too many similarities to Greek and Roman paganism with the whole Son-As-Sacrefice theory. There is nothing like this in the OT The whole Jesus think kinda rolls out of left field.

Original Sin evolved to justify the whole Jesus is Salvation shmear.

Opera Nut, your shampoo analogy was GENIUS.

Actually if it weren't for the wierd Paulist stuff, the whole Jesus thing wouldn't seem that much weirder than OT stuff....

Amazing how much faith is placed in a man (Paul) who claimed to have met Jesus only through visions and contradicted himself so often.... people are more concerned with an imaginary set of rules than making better te world we live in.

Best,

Fr8trainman