judge

How hillarious!
You are right, I did have this wrong.

Here is the correct lists

First Series..... Second series..... Third series


1. Abraham..... 1. Solomon..... 1. Salathiel
2. Isaac......... 2. Roboam...... 2. Zerubabel
3. Jacob......... 3. Abia ......... 3. Abiud
4. Judas......... 4. Asa........... 4. Eliachim
5. Phares........ 5. Josaphat... 5. Azor
6. Esron......... 6. Joram........ 6. Sadoe
7. Aram.......... 7. Ozias........ 7. Achim
8. Aminadab.... 8. Joatham.... 8. Eliud
9. Naasson..... 9. Achaz........ 9. Eleazar
10. Salmon..... 10. Ezechias.. 10. Mathan
11. Booz........ 11. Manasses. 11. Jacob
12. Obed........ 12. Amon...... 12. Joseph (father of Mary)
13. Jesse....... 13. Josias...... 13. Mary
14. David........ 14. Jechonias. 14. Jesus

Thanks for that, I must have made this error before as I cut and pasted it from my previous post.

That's why I post here.

spin

But now you're back to the problem of losing a generation in the first series, ie the generations go from one person to the next, so between 14 names there are 13 generations. As David is repeated we have 15 names for the second series, therefore 14 generations. Jeconiah is repeated for the third series so we have umm, 13 generations. You simply can't get 14 generations out of the first or third series -- except if you reinvent gbr) in the third series.


spin

Aspirin99

Sort of unrelated to Spin and Judge's discourse...

In Robert Price's The Incredible Shinking Son of Man (p.46), he makes the point that Mark has Jesus down playing the whole Davidic lineage for the Messiah.

He mentions Mark 12:35-37

[35] While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David?
[36] David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." '[from Psa 101:1]
[37] David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"
The large crowd listened to him with delight.

If I'm understanding the Price's point correctly, David, in Psa.101:1 speaks of the Messiah as being his lord (verus a relative). Therefore, Jesus was saying that the Messiah may not necessarily come from the line of David. If true, Jesus (per Mark) was contradicting both Luke and Matthew's account.

judge

Ha ha... you wish.


each person is a generation. What is so hard to accept about this?

spin

Apparently the notion of generation doesn't make sense to you. You know, that which is produced by what came before? X fathered Y = one generation.


spin

judge

You wish.

But this is not how Matthew uses it elsewhere.

spin

This generation, ie the last lot produced.

judge

You wish.

Actually hallandale understood it earlier in this thread.


Using the traditional method we do arrive at 41.

Spin we are just playing a game.

Skeptics have always tried to argue that with joseph being mary's husband in verse 16 we have 41 generations.

spin

This game doesn't change the problem. You keep running around in circles fobbing off argument with meaningless froth: You wish.

I gave you a clear indication of the significance of "generation" and all you can do is say: You wish. You do not engage in the matter.

Having supplied you with a working definition, I'd say that it is wrong. You don't count the generator only the generated. This means that there are only 40 generations.

But while we are here, what's the big deal? A list can lose information in transmission. You are merely trying to deal with this "problem" by creating another.

I don't give a tinker's cuss what skeptics have tried to argue. We are dealing with what can be demonstrated from the text. I wish you would stop playing games. You are dancing around like a court jester, first saying this, then that, whichever way the wind blows so that you support your abuse of the text. You know by now that

1. the word for "father" in Syriac is )b) and it is used throughout the Peshitta nt, so there is no reason to assume that if the writer wanted to mean "father" in Mt 1:16 he wouldn't have used )b) there.
2. gbr) simply doesn't mean "father" (and yes I know of your misuse of Mt 7:9, which is the reason why I supplied the example of the doctor's son, so that you wouldn't persist in arguing along the lines that "doctor" must mean "father" in that case). I gave an example which you completely ignored earlier: Jesus says that he's come to set a man gbr) against his father )bwhy, Mt 10:35.
3. the Greek aner and the Syriac gbr) mean the same thing, "man", and it functions well enough as is in Mt 1:16. We would normally assume that Joseph was Mary's man with all its implications. (One Hebrew word for man, Y$, "ish", is also used where we would specifically put "husband".)
4. though women are mentioned in the list of generations of Mt, they are never part of the actual list of generations, but are additions outside the generation list, so that your attempt to insert Mary into the list doesn't reflect the list modus operandi.
5. a verb connects each generation, X begat Y in every case down to Joseph, and while Jacob begat Joseph, there is no indication that Joseph begat Mary, which would be necessary for the wild scheme you are proposing.

You do not deal with the issue by even showing that you understand the points put before you. As I said before, your approach is not honest.


spin

Amaleq13

If Abraham is the starting point, you have to number him "zero" and his offspring as the first generation. To consider Abraham as the first generation, his father would have to be included in the list. Likewise, Cain and Abel are the first generation from Adam.