Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 10-19-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Well it is quite easy to show you are wrong here.

I was asking a question about your position, judge. I was not giving any thought to how I would count the generations.

judge · 10-19-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I was asking a question about your position, judge. I was not giving any thought to how I would count the generations.

Well here are your words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Nope. If you had asked me last month or last year I would have given the same answer. The first guy isn't a generation. His children are the first generation. If Abraham is to be counted as a generation, his father should start the list.

Sure sounds like you are giving a thought as to how you would do it.
Aplogies if i got it wrong though.

Amaleq13 · 10-19-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Sure sounds like you are giving a thought as to how you would do it.

I am now but, at the time I wrote that comment, I was only trying to understand your argument. I never thought about how the count was started but I should have.

spin · 10-19-2005, 05:36 PM

Yet again we find someone who knows what another person was thinking despite the fact that the evidence is quite clear.

I proposed that the analysis that judge presented was wrong. The upsot of this is that if my proposal was correct then there were not 14 generations as judge suggested but 13 for we were obviously a generation shy.

In this context, Amaleq13 asks, "So we are still left with 13 generations that are claimed to be 14?" to check the implication. Did I have another way to make 14 generations perhaps?

Now here we have judge converting that question into a statement to Amaleq13: "You claimed there were 13 then."

How consistently abysmal can analyses be, judge? So not only do you get an F for your philological studies but you get and F for reading as well.

spin

Chris Weimer · 10-20-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is only a problem for fundamentalists and those anti-religionists who require the bible to be 100% accurate.

It's not a problem, really, but I just want to understand what Matthew was thinking, if the error is transmission or his, and if his why exactly. I doubt, like anything in New Testament studies, that we'll ever really know why, but it's always good to speculate.

Johnnyboy · 11-24-2005, 05:56 AM

Some fundies also claim, that "Joseph" (or any other name) in the genealogies does not stand for a single man, but for a "tribe". That is their explantation for the "short" number of generations, between Jesus and Adam. But again, everybody just can invent genealogies, they do not prove anything at all. They have to believe that they aren't fake, the same way they have to believe the nice story about Jesus and bethlehem, which seems a bit invented to me, since it does not fit into AT prophecy. But still I have not seen a clear argumen, that makes sure that the genealogies are fake, since fundies always created some nice explentations...

pharoah · 11-24-2005, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

According to the HB tradition, between Jehoram (=Joram) and Uzziah (=Azariah) there were three other kings, Ahaziah, Joash and Amariah. (1 Chr 3:11-12) What has happened here is that before the genealogical list reached Mt, a scribe had confused Ahaziah and Azariah (Uzziah) when copying and omitted the names of three kings. This seems the simple likelihood. Whatever the case, the second segment lacks three names that it should have, making it potentially seventeen names. But let's not get too concerned with accuracy.

spin

The scribal mis-copy theory is wrong, unless you're claiming that scribe or someone else also edited verse 17. Clearly Matthew had a fascination with the number 14 and fixed the geneologies that way.

Quote:

17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Clarice O'C · 11-24-2005, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallandale

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
If Mary was espoused to Joseph, and Joseph was not his father, but Jesus was a child of the Holy Ghost, then Jesus was illegitimate, or a bastard.
Deuteronomy 23:2
2A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
This would disqualify him from being the Messiah.

Since Jesus didn't have a human father, why the geneaologies in the first place? :huh:

spin · 11-25-2005, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

The scribal mis-copy theory is wrong, unless you're claiming that scribe or someone else also edited verse 17.

Thanks for pronouncing it wrong, but you don't know when such a scribal intervention may have happened. What I had in mind was prior to Mt getting it. So unless you're crystal balling, there is no way to know that the loss of three names from the Hebrew to the Greek is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

Clearly Matthew had a fascination with the number 14 and fixed the geneologies that way.

Where can you see this hypothetical fascination outside the genealogy?? If you can't -- and I don't think you can --, then you don't know when the 14s were imposed on the genealogy. But hey, you could be right, but then again, who cares?

spin

Huon · 11-26-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarice O'C

Since Jesus didn't have a human father, why the geneaologies in the first place? :huh:

Not only Jesus was the son of God, but his mother, too, belonged to a very good family.

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

10-19-2005, 05:36 PM	#64
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Yet again we find someone who knows what another person was thinking despite the fact that the evidence is quite clear. I proposed that the analysis that judge presented was wrong. The upsot of this is that if my proposal was correct then there were not 14 generations as judge suggested but 13 for we were obviously a generation shy. In this context, Amaleq13 asks, "So we are still left with 13 generations that are claimed to be 14?" to check the implication. Did I have another way to make 14 generations perhaps? Now here we have judge converting that question into a statement to Amaleq13: "You claimed there were 13 then." How consistently abysmal can analyses be, judge? So not only do you get an F for your philological studies but you get and F for reading as well. spin

11-24-2005, 05:56 AM	#66
Johnnyboy Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 117	Some fundies also claim, that "Joseph" (or any other name) in the genealogies does not stand for a single man, but for a "tribe". That is their explantation for the "short" number of generations, between Jesus and Adam. But again, everybody just can invent genealogies, they do not prove anything at all. They have to believe that they aren't fake, the same way they have to believe the nice story about Jesus and bethlehem, which seems a bit invented to me, since it does not fit into AT prophecy. But still I have not seen a clear argumen, that makes sure that the genealogies are fake, since fundies always created some nice explentations...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.