Skip to comments.Paleontologists Target Montana Dinosaur Museum
Posted on 11/09/2009 9:18:40 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
I agree. However, Mary is not mentioned. Not only that, but the genitive case for of in the Greek indicates a father-son relation. If you read a literal translation of the Greek text, it says this, with the word son implied because of the Greek case :And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph, the [son] of Mattathias, .... (Luke 23-38 YLT).
So what are we to make of this?
I don't know. There has been much debate on the geneaologies over the centuries. Some take it that Mary's father was named Heli, and that the genealogy is referring to Joseph as his son in law. That belief is consistent with Greek usage and thus separates it from Joseph's genealogy in Matthew.
I'm with you on the genealogy of Luke being Mary's genealogy. One thing we do know is that in a time and place where genealogies were carefully kept and managed, we have no indication that Jesus's geneaology was ever challenged.
However, this still doesn't resolve the genealogical differences between Matthew and 1 Chronicles.
I do want to make this absolutely clear. I believe that the Bible is the true, inspired word of God as spoken through his prophets. People can interpret the Bible wrongly, but the Bible is not in error.
As to your understanding of Hebrew and Greek, not even the greenest student would make the errors in understanding genealogies and use of the terms son as you have.
Please be more specific.
- Ancient and modern Jews blot out the names of wicked ancestors. They use Deuteronomy 29:20 as their reasoning.
- Ancient and modern Jews refer to themselves as "sons of Abraham" even though Abraham lived 2500 to 3000 years ago. For example, see here.
- Jesus was called the "son of David" even though David was not his father.
How do you account for the discrepancies between Matthew and 1 Chronicles? I gave my position, which is the same as that of many conservative, evangelical scholars. When you actually pull out your Bible and see the huge differences, don't feel overwhelmed. Julius Africanus struggled with this in the 4th century and Augustine proposed other possibilities later.
The Bible is the inerrant word of God but that doesn't mean that everything in it is plain.
I suggest you look at the other Greek meanings of the word cosmos. By your own link, one of the meanings is "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ." [excerpt]So you are saying that when Peter wrote And spared not the old kosmos, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the kosmos of the ungodly; he was talking about 'the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ'?
There is no disagreement with the Hebrew scriptures nor anything that requires that the entire planet be flooded -- only the place where people "hostile to Christ" lived. [excerpt]Um, the flood predated the birth Christ by some 2,000 plus years.
The human race was young and had yet to spread over the whole planet. Humanity was likely limited to the Mesopotamian basin. [excerpt]Chapter and verse please.
An exegetical reading of scripture neither supports nor denies a planet-wide flood. [excerpt]I think you mean 'Eisegetical'.
I and most others with science training see big problems with interpreting eretz to mean the entire planet and point out that the language of the Bible does not require us to believe that Noah's flood covered the entire planet. [excerpt, emphasis mine]Because if you did accept that the flood was global, then your faith in your science training would be pitted against your faith in God's word.
However, God's revelation through his creation does not support a worldwide flood in the past 10,000 years. God's revelation through his creation clarifies things not spoken of in his special revelation through his word. [excerpt]It would be more objective, [not to mention honest], to say
Thank you for helping me further make my point. [excerpt]Your very welcome, but please try harder :(
The keeping of an accurate genealogical registry was of vast import as the restored kingly line of Israel would have to be established by “legal right”, someone who was in the kingly line of David, The Messiah. (Eze. 21:27)
Secondly, What discrepancies are you pointing to between 1 Chron. 3 and Matt. 1?
Lastly, if I misunderstood your earlier comments as I quoted them, I apologize.
Thank you, my dear friend, and thank you for the prayers. We saw many miracles in the months before my passing. As just one example, my father's last lucid hours were for about 5 hours 10 days or so before he died. Those 5 hours just "happened" to coincide with my brother bringing my nieces to Dallas to see dad for the last time. We also had lots of opportunities to minister to others who don't know God or don't have a close walk with him.
As for disagreement, yes, we certainly disagree. But each of us deal with attacks from different directions. Regardless of the age of the earth, our differences are rather tiny when seen from the viewpoint of an eternity with Jesus.
Oh, missing links. We can't trust it since there are missing links.
Good grief!!! How difficult can it be to understand that if the dating method is inaccurate then all that is drawn from the method is questionable.