Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paleontologists Target Montana Dinosaur Museum
ICR News ^ | November 9, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 11/09/2009 9:18:40 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-57 last
To: blackpacific
The difference in the genealogies is that of St. Joseph versus the Blessed Virgin Mary, with Luke’s account that of the BVM. They were both of the line of David.

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.


51 posted on 11/10/2009 2:07:03 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
If the Bible is not the word of God, how could He reveal anything to us through it?

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.

  1. Ancient and modern Jews blot out the names of wicked ancestors. They use Deuteronomy 29:20 as their reasoning.
  2. Ancient and modern Jews refer to themselves as "sons of Abraham" even though Abraham lived 2500 to 3000 years ago. For example, see here.
  3. 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.


52 posted on 11/10/2009 2:53:58 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike; count-your-change
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'?

And again when he wrote Whereby the kosmos that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: he was referring to the same group of men?

Could you please tell me exactly what the Cause of Christ was in Noah's day? Much appreciated.

When Matthew wrote That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the kosmos., what was he referring to and how can we know that?

“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'.

Previously you wrote:
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.

Tell me honestly, which would win?

“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 God's revelation through his creation man's fallible and biased interpretation of circumstantial evidence does not support a worldwide flood in the past 10,000 years.

Really, your argument against a flood is based entirely on human 'knowlage', and is not God's inspired Word.

To interpret the scripture so that it does not contradict that 'knowledge' is eisegesis.

“Thank you for helping me further make my point.” [excerpt]
Your very welcome, but please try harder :(

Those ungodly men alienated from God and hostile to the cause of Christ who lived in Noah's day are being obtuse.
53 posted on 11/10/2009 4:29:22 PM PST by Fichori ('Wee-Weed Up' pitchfork wielding neolithic caveman villager with lit torch. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
First to use of the term “son”. Jesus’ genealogy, whether traced through Mary as a natural heir or through Joseph as a legal heir, still shows him to be a descendant of David and hence a “son of David”.
And the Jewish nation viewed itself as spiritual heirs of Abraham and some were able to trace their genealogies so as to qualify for temple service after the return from Babylon.
(Neh. 7:63,64)It does no violence to the use of the term “son” to call a descendant a “son”.

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.

54 posted on 11/10/2009 4:39:09 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your father. And while I don’think our differnces are trivial, I do believe you are a genuine believer who has a heart to please God. I hope all is well with you and yours, and I will be sure to say a prayer tonight for you and your family.

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.


55 posted on 11/10/2009 6:39:16 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; count-your-change
Yes, four people were left out of a geneology during the time of the kings,

Oh, missing links. We can't trust it since there are missing links.

56 posted on 11/10/2009 11:56:27 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; count-your-change
Yes, four people were left out of a geneology during the time of the kings, but that will never give us millions of years; it won’t even give us thousands.

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.

57 posted on 11/11/2009 12:00:04 AM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson