Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dost · 12-31-2002, 04:07 PM

Quote:

The genealogies listed arer that of Joseph, and that of Mary. Mary was refereed to in those days as that of the husband, even for the wife. That explains the two genealogies, of two different lineage, going to two sons of David. One being Solomon, which blood line was cursed, of which Joseph came, and the other, of which was born Mary. Joseph, it is written as supposed to be the father of Jesus, was actually his adopted father.

This is well researched and accepted as a fact.

Not quite. Conservative Christian scholars, Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley E. Porter, write:

Quote:

Both Matthew and Luke offer the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary. The widely held view that Luke offers the genealogy of Mary and Matthew presents the genealogy of Joseph was first proposed in 1490 by Annius, the bishop of Viterbo in central Italy. That view, though obviously intended to account for the clear differences between Matthew and Luke, fails to deal adequately with the fact that both genealogies mention Joseph, but not Mary.

[Lee Martin Mc Donald and Stanley E. Porter. "Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature." First Printing - Nov 2000. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. ISBN: 1-56563-266-4 (cloth) pp. 125.]

The also state:

Quote:

Also in Matthew, Jesus' ancestry is traced through the line of kings, though three kings (Ahaziah, Joash. and Amaziah) are omitted after Joram in v. 8 ***and the actual number of names in vv. 12-16 is not fourteen but thirteen, in spite of the statement in v. 17. This may be due simply to an oversight in Matthew's calculations. ***

["***" added by me.]

[Lee Martin Mc Donald and Stanley E. Porter. "Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature." First Printing - Nov 2000. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. ISBN: 1-56563-266-4 (cloth) pp. 124]

A minor error, but nevertheless an error. If the authors of these books, who were "inspired", could make such slips and minor errors, then what reason is there to deny they could make bigger more significant errors and mistakes? Was Matthew inspired by the Holy Ghost when he penned down 13 names instead of 14?

The genealogies are so messed up that they have resulted in some sort of mass psychosis, in which the least likely explanation has been accepted by all Christians, operating under the "given" that the NT cannot possibly contain discrepancies and errors, therefore ANY explanations, involving the greatest leaps of logic, must be accepted.

Even Origen realised the Bible contained errors:

Quote:

Scripture was not even free from factual error. So careful a student of the text as Origen could not help being aware of discrepancies between the different gospel records. The normal procedure of the early Church scholar was to explain these away by elaborate attempts to harmonise the conflicting accounts. That was a game which Origen could play when he wanted to as ingeniously as anyone else. But he did not believe that it could solve the problem entirely. Moreover, the factual truth of some recorded incidents was open to serious doubt on other grounds also, on grounds for example of the intrinsic improbability. . . . . Thus the discrepancies between the different records and the historical implausibility of some of the incidents described are such that they might well undermine our whole faith in the trustworthiness of the gospels.

["The Cambridge History of the Bible. From the Beginnings to Jerome." Edited by P. R Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. Volume 1. Chapter: 14 "Origen As Biblical Scholar." by M. F. Wiles. Cambridge University Press. First Published 1970 pg. 463.]

Family Man · 12-31-2002, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thebeast

This is well researched and accepted as a fact.

Yech, another inane genealogy thread. Luke's genealogy as Mary's is hardly accepted as fact, nor has it been well-researched. It is pure conjecture based on the need for the gospel to harmonize. There is nothing in the text or in the culture of the ancient Isrealis that support the notion of a genealogy through the female line.

As Randal Helms put it:

Quote:

It is obvious that another Christian group, separate from the one supplying Matthew's list but feeling a equal need for a messiah descended from David, compiled its own genealogy, as imaginary as Matthew's in its last third. And like Matthew's genealogy, it traces the Davidic ancestry of a man who, Luke insists, is not Jesus's father anyway, and thus is rendered pointless.

pz · 12-31-2002, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Javaman
I've just read some of thebeast's other posts...

Troll or sheep. Either way, I'm done.

Yeah, he just blew through E/C and spluttered out a bunch of vacuous old nonsense. He's a post-and-run troll.

I might think otherwise if he actually settled down in one place and tried to engage in some substantive discussion (that's a hint, beast guy).

Thomas Cassidy · 12-31-2002, 04:33 PM

I am not "thebeast" but let me take a shot at some of these.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.

Well, actually you have added the words "This was after Terah died." In fact, all verse 32 says is that Terah died in Haran. It seems clear that Abram left Terah there and continued his journey without his father.

Quote:

GE 49:2-28 The fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and Benjamin.
RE 7:4-8 (Leaves out the tribe of Dan, but adds Manasseh.)

Yes. Dan was removed from his inheritance due to moral failure, and Manasseh, son of Josheph received his lot.

Quote:

NU 25:9 24,000 died in the plague.
1CO 10:8 23,000 died in the plague.

The Hebrew word here translated "four" is the word for "square." It has no exact meaning, but can mean "4" "14" "40" etc. In this case it is similar to our saying "I am in my 56th year." I am only 55 years old, but having completed my 55th year I am now in my 56th years (for another month, anyway). It is a means of saying "somewhere between 23,000 and 24,000.

Quote:

1SA 16:10-11, 17:12 Jesse had seven sons plus David, or eight total.
1CH 2:13-15 He had seven total.

One died later and was not included in the Chronicles account, which is, after all, a geneology. As the deceased son had no progeny, it would be meaningless to include him. I tell everyone who asks me I have one daughter. My son died in 1976. When asked how many kids I have, I say "One." No great mystery.

Quote:

2SA 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000.
1CH 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000.

The 2 Samuel figure could be 800,000 battle-seasoned soldierswith the additional 300,000 being of military age who were in reserve but never fought. Or, it could be the 288,000 in the standing army was rounded off to 300,000. Either of these would bring the numbers into agreement.

As far as Judah is concerned, Benjamin was not counted in the censes after David stopped it. In 2 Samuel the figure for Judah included the already-known number of 30,000 troops from Benjamin, so the total of 500,000. The Benjamites, of course, remained loyal to David and Judah during the uprising.

Quote:

2SA 24:24 David paid 50 shekels of silver for the purchase of a
property.
1CH 21:22-25 He paid 600 shekels of gold.

Apples and oranges. In the initial transaction David bought the small thrashing floor and purchased the oxen, all for 50 shekels of silver. Afterward, in 1 Chron 21:25 we see he bought "the place" costing 180 times as much, which included the entire area of Mt. Moriah.

Quote:

1KI 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
2CH 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses).

This may simply be due to the fact that the hebrew word can mean either 4 or 40. It may be a scribal error. No biggy.

Quote:

1KI 5:16 Solomon had 3,300 supervisors.
2CH 2:2 He had 3,600 supervisors.

2 Chronicles includes non-Israelit labors and their supervisors. See chapter 5 verse 15.

Quote:

1KI 7:15-22 The two pillars were 18 cubits high.
2CH 3:15-17 They were 35 cubits high.

Well, actually the second account is not measuring their height, but rather their length as they lay, end to end, in their molds.

Quote:

1KI 7:26 Solomon's "molten sea" held 2000 "baths" (1 bath = about 8 gallons).
2CH 4:5 It held 3000 "baths."

The second account includes the water source needed to keep it flowing as a fountain.

Quote:

1KI 9:28 420 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir.
2CH 8:18 450 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir.

Perhaps a scribal error, but with 17 tons of gold, who cares about such a piddling little bit?

Quote:

1KI 15:14 Asa did not remove the high places.
2CH 14:2-3 He did remove them.

He either did not remove all of the, or, once removed, they reappeared and were allowed to stand. His son Jehoshaphat also tried to remove them, but didn't get them all.

Quote:

1KI 16:6-8 Baasha died in the 26th year of King Asa's reign.
2CH 16:1 Baasha built a city in the 36th year of King Asa's reign.

The time reference is to the 35th year since the kingdom was divided, so the year would have been 896 BC, prior to Baasha's death, in the 14th year of his reign and the 16th year of Asa's. This type of reckoning was generallyt followed in the book of the record of the kings of Judah and Israel, the public records of that time.

Quote:

1KI 16:23 Omri became king in the thirty-first year of Asa's reign and he reigned for a total of twelve years.
1KI 16:28-29 Omri died, and his son Ahab became king in the thirty- eighth year of Asa's reign. (Note: Thirty-one through thirty-eight equals a reign of seven or eight years.)

Omri ruled 12 years (225-874) from Asa's 27th year to Asa's 38th year. So, the reference to his reigning in Asa's 31st year must refer to his sole rule.

Quote:

2KI 8:25-26 Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign.
2CH 22:1 He was 42 when he began his reign.

The Hebrew reads "a son of 42 years." The dynasty of Omri began in 832, he ascended in 790, 42 years after the establishment of the dynasty, at the age of 22.

Quote:

2KI 9:27 Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there.
2CH 22:9 Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to death.

Ahaziah fled by way of the road to Beth Haggan, a town 7 miles south west of Jezreel. Jehu and his men pursured Ahaziah and wounded him at the Ascent of Gur by Ibleam which was just south of Ben Haggan. According to the Chronicles account Ahaziah reached Samaria, about 8 miles south of Beth Haggan, where he hid for a while. He then fled north to Megiddo, about 12 miles north of Samaria, where he died.

Quote:

2KI 16:5 The King of Syria and the son of the King of Israel did not conquer Ahaz.
2CH 28:5-6 They did conquer Ahaz.

2 Kings 17:1 tells us that it was after the 12th yearof Ahaz, when Hosea was king in Israel, that he was defeated, and later carried off into captivity, along with most of Israel.

Quote:

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) was eighteen years old when he began to reign.
2CH 36:9 He was eight.

10 years as co-regent with his father.

Quote:

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) reigned three months.
2CH 36:9 He reigned three months and ten days.

Uh, this one is not even worth answering! LOL!

Quote:

2KI 24:17 Jehoiachin (Jehoaikim) was succeeded by his uncle.
2CH 36:10 He was succeeded by his brother.

There are several instances were two kinds reigned at the same time. His brother was taken into captivity with him and reigned in captivity, while back in Israel his uncle was elevated to the throne.

Quote:

2CH 3:11-13 The lineage is: Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham.
MT 1:8-9 It is: Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, etc.

Uzziah is another way of saying Ahaziah, and such geneologies often leave out names. The original language reads "because the ancestor of."

Quote:

2CH 3:19 Pedaiah was the father of Zerubbabel.
ER 3:2 Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel.

Levarite marriage.

Quote:

ER 2:3-64 (Gives the whole congregation as 42,360 while the actual sum of the numbers is about 30,000.)

The extras were omitted because they were not of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

Quote:

MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.

Uh, the geneology in Luke goes back to Adam, not David. That explains the extra people.

Apikorus · 12-31-2002, 04:57 PM

Quote:

The Hebrew word here translated "four" is the word for "square." It has no exact meaning, but can mean "4" "14" "40" etc.

Thomas, this is nonsense. Hebrew arba means "four" and not "fourteen" ( = arba esrei or arba`ah asar in biblical Hebrew) nor "forty" (= arbaim). The verse in question, Num 25:9, lists the number of plague dead as arba'ah v'esrim elef = 24,000. The meaning is incontrovertible.

There are about 135 instances of the word "forty" in the Hebrew Bible. Example: Gen 5:13 refers to Mahalaleel's age as eight hundred and forty years ("arbaim shanah ushmoneh meot").

There are about 45 instances of the word "fourteen" in the Hebrew Bible. E.g. 1 Chr 25:5 "...And God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters" ("vayitein haelohim l'heiman banim arba`ah asar ubanot shalosh").

אתה יודע לקרו עברית ???

Butters · 12-31-2002, 05:10 PM

Damn double posts! Stop it!

Thomas Cassidy · 12-31-2002, 05:11 PM

Yes, arba, from raba� meaning square. arbaim is simply the plural of arba.

Butters · 12-31-2002, 05:37 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Uh, the geneology in Luke goes back to Adam, not David. That explains the extra people.

Just enough time for a quick one. These are both counting from David, luke lists 75 back to Adam.

thebeast · 12-31-2002, 05:57 PM

There you have it. Everything squared. But that won't do, they'll nit pick something else, and something else. Because the reason they don't believe is not rooted in logic, but in wickedness.

Anyway, to a answer the Islami, the reason I don't believe Moaaamud is because he's the only one who claims to have alledgedly spoken to the angel what'shisname...! And according to the law, the testimony of one man is not enough to establish truth, therefore, since not only mohaaamad succeeds in contradicting every book in the bible, he also make such ludicrous comments that he flew a horse... come on! A flying horse. Who the **** do you think I am?

WWSD · 12-31-2002, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thebeast
There you have it. Everything squared. But that won't do, they'll nit pick something else, and something else. Because the reason they don't believe is not rooted in logic, but in wickedness.

Anyway, to a answer the Islami, the reason I don't believe Moaaamud is because he's the only one who claims to have alledgedly spoken to the angel what'shisname...! And according to the law, the testimony of one man is not enough to establish truth, therefore, since not only mohaaamad succeeds in contradicting every book in the bible, he also make such ludicrous comments that he flew a horse... come on! A flying horse. Who the **** do you think I am?

What's the difference between that and talking donkeys/walking on water/sending demons into pigs/etc?

Ah yes, the bible tells us so.

How do you determine that the bible is the truth?

God says so.

And how do we know there is a god?

The bible tells us so.

Rinse, wash, repeat...

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

12-31-2002, 05:10 PM	#16
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	Damn double posts! Stop it!

12-31-2002, 05:11 PM	#17
Thomas Cassidy Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 42	Yes, arba, from raba� meaning square. arbaim is simply the plural of arba.

12-31-2002, 05:57 PM	#19
thebeast Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 42	There you have it. Everything squared. But that won't do, they'll nit pick something else, and something else. Because the reason they don't believe is not rooted in logic, but in wickedness. Anyway, to a answer the Islami, the reason I don't believe Moaaamud is because he's the only one who claims to have alledgedly spoken to the angel what'shisname...! And according to the law, the testimony of one man is not enough to establish truth, therefore, since not only mohaaamad succeeds in contradicting every book in the bible, he also make such ludicrous comments that he flew a horse... come on! A flying horse. Who the **** do you think I am?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.