Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Meatros · 07-16-2008, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Nice, but not really answering the question. I know well that the different genealogies have been discussed through the centuries, and that some explanations are somewhat plausible. However, tracing Jesus´ line through Mary doesn´t really answer the simple question of who was Joseph´s father? Unless your claim is that the writer didn´t "really" mean Joseph, but Mary.

You didn't read all of the post, did you? Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. They generally didn't use the mother as a genealogical link, so Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli through the marriage of Mary. Heli was Mary's father.

Can you provide evidence that the Jewish culture had done this before?

WVIncagold · 07-16-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

(Leviticus 11:19) - "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
Apparently god doesn't know mammals from birds. Clue one has fur the other feathers. My 4 year old neighbor new the difference.

A more accurate translation would be flying creatures instead of birds. You know, a lot of these contradictions could be cleared up if the skeptic would bother to look at more translations.

True it could be all flying creatures but why were not insects included? So yes there are other translations but certain people think the KJV is the only applicable version and that people in Judea spoke kings English so thy tend to like to argue over English meaning of words. Still All the other winged creatures discussed were feathered. The bat is not. Anyway you look at it, that is an inconsitancy.

07-16-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meatros

Can you provide evidence that the Jewish culture had done this before?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

I already have. See this post.

I keep getting a message that says this post is too short. Machines!

bekaybe · 07-16-2008, 06:47 AM

DLH - my apologies.. I missed you having addressed my post. Thanks for doing so. I must confess, most defenders of the Bible I've run in to refuse to admit translation errors.

aa5874 · 07-16-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

(Luke 3:23) "Jesus himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. He was (so it was thought) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli"

(Matthew 1:16) "Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah"

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. ( Lu 3:31 / Mt 1:6,7 ) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David. Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Your statement that Luke follows the ancestry of Mary is completely erroneous. There is no passage in gLuke which can support such a statement.

The author of Luke clearly wrote that Joseph was the SON of Heli.

Why do you just make stuff up?

Your claim is bogus and cannot be supported and has failed the credibility test.

07-16-2008, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVInxcagold;

True it could be all flying creatures but why were not insects included? So yes there are other translations but certain people think the KJV is the only applicable version and that people in Judea spoke kings English so thy tend to like to argue over English meaning of words. Still All the other winged creatures discussed were feathered. The bat is not. Anyway you look at it, that is an inconsitancy.

Maybe insects didn't apply? The KJV is about as lame as it gets. The argument over the meaning of words, English, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin is probably the most important one. You can learn a great deal from such an argument. The meaning of the words hell, soul, spirit, evil, and god, for example would clear up about 70% of the confusion that Xians have passed down to the skeptic. The skeptic, generally isn't really skeptical of the Bible, they are skeptical of the apostate Xianity.

Words are most important.

There is no inconsistancy there that you yourself have not contrived. You know how when a believer sees something in the words that you can not? It works both ways. You see something there that really isn't there and you have to cling to that. That is the danger or religious 'thinking.'

07-16-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your statement that Luke follows the ancestry of Mary is completely erroneous. There is no passage in gLuke which can support such a statement.

The author of Luke clearly wrote that Joseph was the SON of Heli.

Why do you just make stuff up?

Your claim is bogus and cannot be supported and has failed the credibilty test.

Oh dear! [disappears in a puff of illogic]

aa5874 · 07-16-2008, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your statement that Luke follows the ancestry of Mary is completely erroneous. There is no passage in gLuke which can support such a statement.

The author of Luke clearly wrote that Joseph was the SON of Heli.

Why do you just make stuff up?

Your claim is bogus and cannot be supported and has failed the credibilty test.

Oh dear! [disappears in a puff of illogic]

I repeat, your claim that the author of Luke used the ancestry of Mary is a BOGUS claim.

The name MARY is nowhere at all in the genealogy of gLuke.

The first name mentioned is Jesus and the last name is Adam, the son of God.

You just make stuff up.

You have failed the credibility test.

See Luke 3.23-38.

07-16-2008, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

...what you have shown me dues, is that ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

You have no case dues, none at all.

I'm just saying...

What The Deus?

I kept reading this post over and over and I just didn't get it. Now I see. Hey ... I have seen studies where all of the letters in words only have to be there in order for the human mind to know what they are. That is a good thing, 'cause I can't spell fer shit.

Net2004 · 07-16-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Mark 10 In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

matthew 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."

In short, Matthew has made certain changes to the story related in Mark Mark 10:2-12. According to Mark, the pharisees question Jesus about divorce and Jesus asks them about about the command in this regard given by Moses. Jesus then explains why this command was given -- "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law." Jesus goes on to say that, "what God has joined together, let man not separate." Later, once in the house, the diciples also question Jesus to which he replies: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." Period, end of story.

Matthew relates the above story in Matthew 19:3-12, but he makes some changes. The placement is changed -- rather than asking the pharisees "What did Moses command you?" as Jesus does in Mark, in Matthew Jesus starts off by referring to Genesis. It is the pharisees who, in reaction, ask Jesus to explain the command of Moses and Jesus then gives his reply to that. Furthermore, while in Mark the disciples get to question Jesus "in the house," -- away from the pharisees -- in Matthew the scene appears to be unchanged and the disciples simply offer the suggestion, in light of Jesus' earlier verdict regarding divorce, that it is better not to marry at all, to which Jesus later comments. Jesus' verdict on divorce in Matthew, which includes the exception clause, is formulated in the midst of his discussion with the pharisees and not "in the house" when he is with his disciples.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2008, 06:47 AM	#154
bekaybe Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 65	DLH - my apologies.. I missed you having addressed my post. Thanks for doing so. I must confess, most defenders of the Bible I've run in to refuse to admit translation errors.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.