Doctor X

. . . and YHWH defeating a water beast that sounds just too much like Tiamat. . . .

--J.D.

Cross Examiner

Spenser, I missed this the first time:
Mr. Zindler's 11.5ft/hr rate of downpour to reach Mt. Ararat’s peak in 40 days considers only one source of the floodwater. Don't forget Genesis 7:11-12:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Beyelzu, you write:
I hope you feel better soon.

Make concrete statements? Should we stop asking questions and start making assertions now? Should we not question assumptions like the following?:
'The author of Matthew had trouble copying.'

Ironic statement. I to, Beyelzu, do not appreshiate errers . Anyway, would the source for your pronouncement upon Matthew be the skeptics annotated Bible website or some such?

NOGO, you write:
If Matthew 'was not concerned with facts' at all then he wouldn't have listed the 14 names that 1 Chronicles did list.

That's the adventuresome spirit! I don't read minds but you apparently have the gift -- making such a proclamation ‘sight unseen’ and all that.

Yes, I'm familiar with a version of that banal explanation. However, there are many considerations that I'd rather not replicate so here is an abstract of the issue that links to more exhaustive study at the bottom, for the ambitious. Anyway, the unnecessary negative case aside, since you made the positive claim that this Matthew passage is indeed in 'error,' you get the chore of first demonstrating that Matthew did indeed make the copying mistake that you allege. Now, lets see the evidence for this conclusion.

How did you know that? First we find out that you're adventuresome, then a mind reader and now a prophet? There is no way that you are still on the market.

Bernard, you wrote an interesting analysis and, in your conclusion say that:
As you note, it is truly a wonder that Matthew did 'get away with that,' given the context of his day ... unless 'that' [Matthew's genealogy] was not in error at all, despite what one has asserted lately, which would explain why there's no objection forthcoming from those most likely to object early, voraciously and frequently. Maybe the original Jewish skeptics of Christianity understood a thing or two about Matthew that the modern skeptic doesn't know? Similarly, modern skeptics have all but abandoned the original Jewish skeptic's tack of claiming that the disciples stole the body of Christ. Where's the loyalty guys?

Kosh, you write:
C.S. Lewis, a non-literalist with regard to certain Biblical texts, distinguishes Pagan myths from OT allegory, the former being nearly devoid of basis in reality and the latter dealing in detail to great extent while emphasizing symbolism and abstraction. I too make that distinction. Some can, some can't. Many here can but will not ... for other reasons.

Patently false. I don't need to rattle off a list of names, degrees, honors and achievements do I?

Yes, thank you, I am. Of course, substantiating the relative believability of the Flood as compared to the myth of Minerva was never my aim.

Opening argument duties have already been assumed by NOGO. Patience.

Jeremy Pallant, you write:

If we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that this:

‘...both myths are equally ludicrous.’

is as you say, then this is not true:

Spenser: 'No, its [account/allegory of the Flood] far more ludicrous than that [myth of Minerva].'

which is what I took issue with. I might also take issue with the notion that the account (if literal) or allegory (if symbolic) of the Flood is as unreasonable as the blatant mythologizing of the Greeks about Athena. However, I don't expect to get far here with that particular appeal to sensibility. So, it is all a minor quibble in that respect and not worth pursuing (I would persuade more bankers to socialism at a WTO meeting). The 'point,' as you say, is to see if NOGO can demonstrate Matthew’s alleged copying error.

Mageth,
They say the human body consists of ~20$ worth of elements. So 'ashes to ashes and dust to dust' is appropriate. I’ll see you all next week and you all will see me, God willing. Take care.

Regards,
BGic

Doctor X

Who wants to be the first to inform him that the underground springs could not contain enough water?

--J.D.

Mageth

Or that it's Everest, and not Mt. Ararat, that one has to take into consideration.

Doctor X

. . . or the rate of evaporation . . . or what would happen if you suddenly "let out the plug" to bring the water back into these "underground springs" so the water could receed at the rate it did.

Of course . . . one would have to wonder what happened to these "springs." If still in existence then we should have no flooding in the world . . . since the water could just drain into it . . . but . . . what if they are "full."

We better find them before they "burst forth" again!

I need to apply for a goverment grant. . . .

--J.D.

Kosh

Hey, you guys might have forgotten somewhere in the last four pages that BGiC is NOT debating the flood or defending it.

Doctor X

But of course. . . .

. . . no defense whatsoever.

--J.D.

Tod

Originally posted by Mageth
Or that it's Everest, and not Mt. Ararat, that one has to take into consideration.

Or, as Dave Matson points out: Aside from stability problems involved in packing vast quantities of free water under miles of rock, an arrangement that would have caved in from the start, there is problem in getting the water out. After a small quantity has been released, the pressure would have dropped to zero! At that point you have to cave in the caverns to displace the remaining water with rock. However, that wouldn't drive the water much higher than the original sea level as the rocks and water would simply change places.

Spenser

Not to mention that the over abundance of fresh water would desalinate the oceans exterminating nearly all marine life. Our atmosphere would have been raised to an elevation in which the majority of it would have been lost to space. And you just can’t fit that many animals on any ship ever built; EVER! Then mix in the absurd equation of dinosaurs possibly being on the ark… oi.

Bernard Muller

BGic wrote:
Yes, I'm familiar with a version of that banal explanation. However, there are many considerations that I'd rather not replicate so here is an abstract of the issue that links to more exhaustive study at the bottom, for the ambitious.

I looked at your referred site, but on the list from David to Jeconiah, Rehoboam is forgotten (Mt1:7). I suppose, if "Matthew" or "Ezra" can do it, so also the author of your recommended website.
Of course, with 'Rehoboam', either 'David' or 'Jeconiah will have to go, and that will affect some of the comments written after the site lists.
Also, the nice symmetry would be lost, that is the 2nd series of 14 starting where the 1st finished (David), and the 3rd series of 14 starting where the 2nd finished (Jeconiah).

On BGic's same posted site:
Jeconiah's name may have been repeated because of a transcription error. Jeconiah's father was Jehoiakim. The names had similar spellings. Given the fact that some ancient manuscripts contain both names, it is not unreasonable to admit that a transcriber may have overlooked the different spellings, and repeated Jeconiah's name.

So the website author admits "Matthew" made a mistake. I recall you wrote: "you get the chore of first demonstrating that Matthew did indeed make the copying mistake". So, I do not think you would endorse that, but you recommended the website regardless. Can you clarify?
And
Do the Hebrew OT and the LXX NOT show a different spelling for 'Jehoiakim' & 'Jeconiah'?
Are 2Kings23:36-24:17 and 2Ch36:5-10 NOT clear about Jehoiakim & his son Jeconiah?

On BGic's same posted site:
Genealogical abridgement occurs not only in Matthew 1:1, but also in the Old Testament. Compare Ezra 7:3 with 1st Chronicles 6:7-10, and you can see how Ezra deliberately skipped six generations from Meriaoth to Azariah (son of Johanan).

But the author of 'Ezra' did not try to fit the genealogy into a series of fourteen, a multiple of God's number (7)!

BGic wrote:
unless 'that' [Matthew's genealogy] was not in error at all, despite what one has asserted lately, which would explain why there's no objection forthcoming from those most likely to object early, voraciously and frequently.

But we do not know about how GMatthew was received in its community and what reactions it caused.
The first comments on GMatthew came from Irenaeus one century later, who was not going to be critical, more so because he declared that gospel sacred. And the following fathers were very unlikely to scrutinize the same gospel for errors.

BGic wrote:
If Matthew 'was not concerned with facts' at all then he wouldn't have listed the 14 names that 1 Chronicles did list.

Because the total came to fourteen, from Abraham to David (both included). So "Matthew" had a good reason to follow the "facts" here, and not distort them.
But for the next series, from David to Jeconiah, the numbers did not match and we know how "Matthew" handled that.
Or would you say "Matthew" was concerned with facts here (as per 2Kings & 2Chronicles) in a different way he was concerned with facts from 1Ch1-2 for his first series of fourteen?

Best regards, Bernard