|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Luke and Matthews geneologies | |||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
As this is my first posting/response, please forgive me if I am not up to speed on all the right protocals.
This topic of geneology "contradictions" is one (of many) which has led me to ask myself one simple question: does the Bible mean what it says, and say what it means? The many explainations for the differances in the Matthew and Luke geneologies seem awfully conveluted to me, and based on no real information other than "it just has to be that way." And, while they may in fact be exactly right, it is clear that the text is obviously not harmonious internally. The actual words of our translations clearly say that both geneologies are of Joseph. That's what they obviously state. If so much explaination is needed to clean up the problem for the average reader, how does the literalist claim the Bible to be a clear statement of truth which needs no tinkering from man, interpretation or re-evaluation of our understanding of it's purpose and meaning for us? I greatly honor scripture for what it teaches me of the Lord, my need for His grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
Hi there! The solution I have proposed is not convoluted. All it requires is that ONE WORD, that being the Aramaic word "gowra" should be translated FATHER instead of HUSBAND.
Because this word has been mistranslated into english ALL the problems occur. The word "gowra" is used throughout the Aramaic of Matthew in the sense of a FATHER[/B][/QUOTE] Thank you for your response. Your solution may be the correct one. If so, it is indeed not conveluted or overly complicated. It does, however, still leave my basic question hanging: are we able to take any of the translations available to us at face value? KJV, so honored by the KJV-only folks, uses the same verbage which seems to lead so many readers to mistrust the Bible as being full of contradictions and problems. This cannot be laid at the feet of so-called "new age" translations. It brings into question the notion of our English translations as being a reliable rendering of an inerant set of scripture. I do not read/speak Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, so this issue is one of some importance to me. Having said that, my own life is greatly enriched by the Bible, even if I cannot take any one translation as wholey reliable. (There are other examples one might mention in this matter.) The question for the Church to answer, in my mind, is whether or not we fit what we believe to align with a reasonable reading of scripture and what we may observe before our very own eyes, or do we torture scripture into some form it might never have meant to be in, order to fit our own belief systems/dogma?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
Quote:
No. I think the question for the church to answer is how to demonstrate the reality of the risen Christ in the world.[/B][/QUOTE] Thank you for your reply. I must agree with you that the Great Commission is our primary calling to the world at large. My question, rather, addresses the need within the Church to examine ourselves; because without such an internal, personal testing, we may well fail to achieve the very goal you mention. Specific to my earlier posting, I was addressing the issue at hand, namely the inerrancy of various Bible translations and how we apply those truths tucked away in scripture to our own lives and, so, attempt to fulfill the carrying of the Gospel to a people in need. As long as we present a ridiculous offering to the world, we will be ridiculed and rejected, not for the sake of the Gospel (which we know can indeed happen!) but because of our own arrogant claim that we have a monopoly on understanding God, one which seems to ignore obvious, observable truth. Without self-examination, who among us would ever have felt that still, soft voice move in our spirit? Perhaps some, but not me. And without daily re-examination, how can one remain open to things bigger than himself? And without that humility, how will we "demonstrate the reality of a risen Christ" to a people in need? These are simply my thoughts. I'm sorry if you are able to dismiss them as "wrong." Your reply served to remind me, as I always should be, of my obligation to others. Gratitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
Does it mean what it says and say what it means?
-Shiloh
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: The Jacob who had the twelve sons? He was the father of Judah, who's line David is in. -Shiloh
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: Icon, It is silly to point out that "Judah is not of the line of David" when David is of the line of Judah, and an orthodox understanding of the prophesy goes back much further than David. (All quotes NASB)One of the earliest references is found in Genesis 12.2a,3b: Talking to Abram/Abraham, God says, "I will make you a great nation...and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." Again in Genesis 28.14b: Speaking to Jacob, God says, "in you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed." As for Judah himself, in Genesis 49.10 it reads: "The scepter shall not part from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples." You may not think much of these prophesies, but to misrepresent them is dangerously close to the sort of hogwash some people do with science in order to bolster a failing concept of scripture or biologic history. On the other hand, if you were unaware of the link between Abraham-Jacob-Judah-David-Jesus in scripture, it would benefit you to study a tad more before telling other folks to learn their Bible history. (BTW if you would post as a "reply," with or without quote, it would be easier to follow your responses and the thread of the conversation. And I, for one, am interested in what you might have to say.) -Shiloh (no connection to above mentioned verse) [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: I've studied this material quite a bit. As I mentioned in my post, the orthodox position on the prophesies concerning the Christ is that the promise goes back to Abram/Abraham through Jacob/Israel through Judah through David. Your denial of this does not change the fact; check out the verses I cited. Or you may refer to a Ryrie study Bible, Expanded Edition (Moody Publishing), "Messianis Prophecies" (p.1503 in my copy), where it lists the following "fulfilled" prophesies:-Line of Abraham -Line of Judah -Line of David -Virgin Birth -Birthplace:Bethlehem -Forerunner: John -King -Prophet -Priest -Will bear world's sins -Will be ridiculed -8 others (which I will not list, since my point is not to prove Christ) [You can find similar material, sometimes with other verse citings,in: Thompson Chain Reference Study Bible (Kirkbride Publishing), "Chart of the Messianic Stars," p.1589 in my copy;or, The Open Bible (Nelson Publishing), "Prophecies of the Messiah Fulfilled in Jesus Christ," p. 1315-1321 in my copy;or, The Three-In-One Concise Bible Reference Companion (Nelson Publishing), "Messiah," p.447 in my copy.] quote: The orthodox position is that it is. This is common doctrine in all of the Christian denominations I know of. BTW, take it easy, Icon. This is only a discussion. If you're tired of people addressing/correcting/agreeing with your posts, maybe you should stop posting. That is what this is all about.
quote: My so-called ignorance of scripture is backed up by verse citing and now an external source. My comments regarding your misuse of scripture stands. In this regard you are acting very much like the folks at AiG and elsewhere. Get it right, or learn from correction.
quote: This is not nonesense. It is simply stating the orthodox position. I have no desperation, because I am not trying to accomplish anything other than to show the mistake in your understanding of the commonly accepted prophesies. Frankly, we have not yet touched on what I might believe.
quote: True, but that has nothing to do with my post.
quote: Not at all. First, I said nothing about anyone fulfilling any prophesy, only that the promises run back to Abraham in the orthodox view. I said nothing at all about anyone being part of David'd line.The absurd thing (bizarre, really) is that you read all that into my post. quote: I do understand, and in this point I agree with you totally. It's not what my post was addressing though.
quote: Since the shoe fits, wear it. You are quite simply leaving out several steps in the prophesy chain. This is all I'm saying. -Shiloh [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-21-2003] [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: Both of the geneologies under dicussion agree on this point: Matthew ch.1 vv.3,6; and Luke ch.3 vv.31,33. This does not ease the existing problems of inconsistencies in the passages. None of the suggested "solutions" has ever quite satisfied me, e.g. Matt. never says it is Mary's geneology, quite the contrary, and hereditory rights are not passed through the mother anyway, and this particular mother appears to be Levitical in origen, etc. -Shiloh
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: No one said it did have anything to do with Jesus descending from David through Solomon. But is not irrelevant since it part of his ascribed geneology and addresses your earlier post:
quote: It is part of the Messianic prophesy. And, of course,Judah is not of the David line; he's many generations before.
quote: Yes you did. You said, Judah "is not part of the prophesy."
quote: Fine, but that has nothing to do with the error I was addressing.
quote: I never said anything like that. Pull up the quote and post it, if I did.
quote: Once again, I'm simply illustrating the orthodox application of the passage as it relates to orthodox understanding of the messianic prophesies.
quote: I'm not ignoring it. It simply isn't what I'm addressing. Your point is quite right, and obviously so. Does anyone deny this? Not me.
quote: Once again, for those of you a little slow on the up-take, I am illustrating orthodox viewpoint. If you would bother to check any of the references I provided, you will see that these are the prevailing positions of every major Christian denomination. Or, show me a source by a mainstream denomination which denies any of these assertions. I am not at all saying that these are important criteria for me in determining what I believe, merely that these are some of the other messianic prophesies which are widely held.
quote: I was correcting your earlier assertion that Judah was not part of the prophesy. (See quote above.)
quote: I have no claims, except that you were incorrect about the place of Judah in the prophesy of the messiah, according to the orthodox view. All the verses I provided can be varified as important to that view by checking the sources I earlier mentioned.
quote: It is only a CHRISTIAN question, so, yes it would be a Christion orthodoxy I'm speaking of. Is there a Buddhist orthodoxy as to the qualifications of Jesus vis a vis messianic prophesy? As to "apologetics," I am not defending anything. I'm simply describing a position, and a very simple one at that.
quote: Who do you think this is? I have offered no position to you at all other than the placement of pre-davidic characters in the prophesy chain. Maybe you ought to go back and look at your conversation thread and see who has been saying what. I'm not really sure of what it is you'd like addressed.
quote: I have no arguement! I was simply addressing the goofy notion that Judah is not part of the prophesies, and the faulty logic which says that, by bringing the Judah componant up, I'm somehow saying that anyone born of Adam could satisfy the prophesies. That simply is not reasonable.
quote: Pull up my quote. Or stop saying that I said or insinuated anything this stupid.
quote: I doubt you could trace it all the way back to creation, unless you were a literalist/young-earth creationist. Which I am not. But, hey, you keep saying that I'm avoiding your question. Did I answer it in my post after the one you're railing about here? Or just what is your question, and from what view point would you like it addressed? (Go back and read my posting history and ask yourself if I sound like a biblical apologist.) -Shiloh [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: Whether or not they will admit anything is not terrible important to me. And, since the more I try and explain my input to you the more off base this conversation gets, perhaps I will just retire from the field. I see no point if you are intent on misunderstanding me or mischaracterizing my comments. -Shiloh
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024