pharoah

This is very sly stuff here, but you've got to get up earlier in the morning to sneak this kind of thing by us.

First of all, Athaliah was NOT of the line of Ahab, she was Omri's daughter (Ahab's sister). The prophecy that you're referring to didn't apply to her at all. Further proof of this is in 2 Kings 10:17

17And when he [Jehu] came to Samaria, he slew all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, till he had destroyed him, according to the saying of the LORD, which he spake to Elijah.

Now if Jehu wiped out the entire line of Ahab, how do you justify your claim that 3 or 4 future rulers of Judah are Ahab's descendants?

Stacey Melissa

She was Ahab's daughter, and Omri's granddaughter. See 2 Kings 8:26.

I'd bet money that inerrantists would point that red part out as their escape clause.

Showing that the curse didn't apply to Joash and Amaziah is gonna be a much bigger project than just pointing out a key verse or two. Sorry, guys. This one can be done, but it's a bitch.

Nuwanda

Actually, you have to get up earlier in the morning to do all the required research before you jump into the discussion. Please read 2 Kings chapters 8-11. Your answer is in there. Notice that special mention is made of Ahaziah being a "son-in-law of the house of Ahab" (2 Kings 8:25-27). No other king is recognized as someones son-in-law, as far as I'm aware. The idea of this scripture is to tell everyone "hey everyone, a decendant of Ahab's house still exists" (at least some from of decendant). It is this Ahaziah (there are two of them) who bore Joash (there's two of them as well, pour the coffee). It is this Joash that was hidden from Athaliah during her reign in Judah so that he would not be killed (2 Kings 11:2 and 2 Chronicles 22:10-12). He eventually becomes king of Judah.

Joash forsook the Lord (2 Chronicles 24:20) and his son Amaziah turned away from the Lord (2 Chr 25:27, bored yet?). It's not until Uzziah that apparently the curse (2 Kings 9:6-10 in conjunction with Exodus 20:4-6) is ended. Uzziah's only issue was a bad case of pride (26:16-21), but he is not accused of forsaking the Lord.

That's the best I can do for you guys. What I've given you is the reason that very few (if any) Jews and/or liberal theologians find issue with Matthew's account of Christs lineage concerning the "14 generations." I'll give ya'll the last word. Have fun.

spin

The desperation shows when you clutch at straws, Nuwanda. Kings tells you that Joash and Amaziah did right with the lord. Now we find you pointing out the contradictions in the two accounts of Kings and Chronicles. Just to underline your predicament, 2 Kings 15:3 tells you that Azariah did what was right in the sight of the lord "just as his father Amaziah had done". Kings is quite definite here in contradicting the position you espouse regarding Amaziah.

Now while you are fiddling about trying to find ad hoc excuses as to why two (of three) kings who had done right in the eyes of the lord were left out of the Matt genealogy, you might care to explain why Manasseh, for example, who certainly did what was evil in the sight of the lord according to the sources should be included in the list if bad guys were to be excluded. You might also explain why you arbitrarily stop at Amaziah using your... umm, logic. Why don't you go all the way down the genealogy? They are all of the same lineage, aren't they? The Matt genealogy should have ended with J(eh)oram according to your line of thought -- but then he did what was evil in the sight of the lord, and, besides, he was the fellow who married into the Omride dynasty, marrying Athaliah.

In fact, the most probable reason for the difference between the royal genealogies is scribal: when a scribe came to Ahaziah which may already have been erroneously written Azariah (as in 2 Chr 22:6 which gives Azariah as son of Jehoram), he jumped to Azariah and continued. This is called a haplography and is not too infrequent. If this is correct, it would have happened before the writer of Matt got his hands on it, because the writer knows only the 14 generations.

If you stop the arbitrary apologetic, you'll have a better opportunity of understanding the text.


spin

pharoah

Actually, the KJV says that she is Omri's daughter in that verse. Most modern versions change "daughter" to "granddaughter". Either they are attempting to harmonize the text or they are translating from a conflicting manuscript. The inerrantists don't fare well either way.

On the contrary, this one is a peice of cake as an apologetic, because it's competely arbitrary and ad-hoc. Consider the fact that the line of Jeconiah was also supposedly cursed by Yahweh. If 3 or 4 of Ahab's descendants were omitted by Matthew because of the curse, then why not 3 or 4 of Jeconiah's descendants?

Perhaps Nuwanda would care to try to reconcile this curse upon the descendants of Jeconiah with the messiahship of Jesus. I haven't seen anyone pull it off yet, but there's always a first time....

Let me point out one more thing here. According to Ezekiel,Yahweh ceased punishing the children for the sins of the father. (It's quite possible that Ezekiel is denying that Yahweh ever did such a thing in the first place, but that's another topic.) Surely Matthew was aware of this.

Stacey Melissa

Sure, you and I recognize that, but those problems don't seem to ever phase the mind of an inerrantist. The mentality of an inerrantist is such that they expect us to prove that there isn't even any answer possible to the errors we point out. They think their ridiculously improbable ad hoc apologetics are enough to save the inerrancy doctrine. They can only be swayed once it is shown that an error is not just ridiculous to apologize for, but impossible to apologize for. It's a case of confirmation bias at its absolute worst.

With this contradiction, I'm trying to demonstrate a Biblical error that cannot possibly be apologized for. Hence my usage of the term "airtight."

And with that, I'm back to work on my response paper...

Tigers!

Thank you for for pointing out a typo I made in post 25.
I meant to say factually correct not incorrect. So no we are not in agreement of that point.

Let's try again.
Set A = world's population
Set B = population of Australia = 20,264,082 persons (Jul. 2006 est.)
I assume you will accept that Set B is a subset of Set A?
(I had a diagram but can't see how to load it easily)

Q: Which of set A or B is factually incorrect?
A: Neither, both are factually correct.

Despite set B being very specific and noting a number it is still factually correct and this does not invalidate the lack of specificivity of set A.
By analogy set A = 1 Chronicles and set B = Matthew 1.
Set B is merely focusing on a certain portion of the larger set A and giving some further details. Neither invalidates the other or causes the other to be contradictory.
Both are referring to same data contained in the same set but are set B is emphasising a particular section of set A.

On another note, it would not have been wise for Matthew to have contradicted I Chronicles. Any Jewish reader of Matthew could have easily gone to their local synagogue, looked at 1 Chronicles for themselves. If there had been a contradiction they would have noted it and said something.
Matthew seemed to have greater respect for the intelligence and common sense of his readers than many of we "moderns".

aa5874

Nuwanda, the book of Matthew clearly states the genealogy of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. The uknown author of Matthew states the offspring of each generation, however names from the genealogy in 1Chronicles 3 are missing. Those are the facts.

Now whether a God curses a person, that person's son or daughter remains so. Just like Adam's son Cain remains so even though Cain was cursed by God, according to Genesis.

In fact, the genealogy becomes even more important when God curses because one would like to know exactly who is cursed. Except in cases of fraud and other criminal events, genealogies are generally regarded as accurate records of history, however it is evident that Matthew and Chronicles are inconsistent and contradictory.

To claim that son means grandson, father or greatgrandfather in the context of a specific genealogy put the whole Christian Bible in disrepute, because that being the case, all genealogies are suspect and no references can be made to any other to clarify the next.

Can I then say that Jesus had a son named James, Cain is the brother of Abraham or Eve is the sister of Mary just to harmonise my own needs. Anyone with basic reading skills can see massive differences in 1 Chronicles 3:11-24 to Matthew 1: 8-16.

The contradictions and inconsistencies in the book of Matthew appear to be deliberate and are for the sole purpose of deception, this book should be removed from the Christian Bible, like some books were over a hundred years ago.

spin

Seems like a lot of people have been doing False Analogies 101 this semester. We are not dealing with sets here we are dealing with verifiable statements. Matt. says that there were 14 generations and his logic requires that there be 14 generations to fit into his numerical scheme. It's not a matter of subsets, but of a failed attempt at accuracy. V 1:17, "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations..." Read the (*) text and stop apologizing.

How on earth would you know?? Stop makingvain assumptions about the wisdom of the writer.

Uh-huh. You've seen how many christians have done the same thing. Why would any self respecting Jew of the era have wasted their time over a religion about a dying messiah?

Like you would know.

ANother shamelessly empty statement.

We are trying to do away with so much conjecture here. How about trying? It'll be good discipline.


spin

pharoah

Unfortunately, your anology is not close to being correct. The Matthew data is not a subset of the Chronicles data. Neither is the Chronicles data a subset of the Matthew data. They both list names and generations that the other doesn't. Your analogy fails even if you isolate just the generations that Matthew and Chronicles have in common. A better analogy of what Matthew did would be me publishing a list of all the states in the USA, then deliberately or inadvertantly omitting 3 of them, and then asserting that there are only 47 states. That assertion is not defensible, and neither is Matthew's. You know that you would find this kind of math unacceptable anywhere else but in the bible.

You mean like the great respect for the intelligence and common sense of his Jewish readers that he showed when he claimed that their dead heroes rose from the grave and walked around Jerusalem?