Matthew 1:1 disproves an inerrant Bible (Jehovah, abomination, believers, rituals)

[lifertexan]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Ilene - you were done a long time ago.

Of course no one thinks that her saying I have problems (plus numerous other statments) is a problem - it will go unnoticed by the URers - I must say you do stick together.

Actually,you do seem to have some problems.Like being able to carry on a civil discussion without insulting those that will not agree with you.It also seems you hold a grudge,as you keep referring to issues between you and IW.

All in all,not a person I would have given a moments thought to following into Christianity had you been the one trying to witness to me as a nonbeliever.I have seen nothing giving me any indication of any kind of spiritual example worth wanting to follow or know where the good fruits came from.

Originally Posted by lifertexan

Actually,you do seem to have some problems.Like being able to carry on a civil discussion without insulting those that will not agree with you.It also seems you hold a grudge,as you keep referring to issues between you and IW.

All in all,not a person I would have given a moments thought to following into Christianity had you been the one trying to witness to me as a nonbeliever.I have seen nothing giving me any indication of any kind of spiritual example worth wanting to follow or know where the good fruits came from.

And yet you respond to me. You just insulted me according to your own standards. I have only been in a conversation with IW no other issues have I tried to defend or articulate. I have been no more civil or uncivilized than you or anyone and it has nothing to do with agreement - but truth - truth regarding owning up to what one says without resorting to character assination, misdirection, misrepresentation, and fallacious reasoning.

You seem to be obsessed with my spiritual well being - maybe you should just go and pray insteaad of striving in your flesh to convince me and others of my terrible witness.

[Enow]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

This is so out of date. These issues have been dealt with - like a zillion times.

First, leaving out names in a genealogy does not necessitate a contradiction. The purpose was obviously structural. There are others as well.

Second, learn to read or count more carefully. People who start out with presumptions about contradictions will find them when they read with carelessness and bias. Verse 17 says 'from Abraham to David' - 14 generations, and 'from David to Babylon' was 14 generations, and 'from the Captivity in Babylon to Jesus' were 14 generations. Notice the highlighted terms are used twice. So you cannot count 14x3 = 42 and then say there needs to be 42 people in the passage.

Abraham - David = 14 (verses 1-4)

David - Babylon (Josiah not Jeconiah - see v.11) = 14 (verses 5-11)

Babylon (Jechoniah not Josiah - see v.12) - Jesus = 14 (verses 12-16)

The focal point is on Babylon - one period ends with Josiah in Babylon the other begins with his son - Jechoniah in Babylon. David is counted twice which is clear when Matt. says in verse 17 'from Abraham to David' and then says 'from David to Babylon.' But noctice he does not say the name of the person in the second period - just 'until Babylon' but starts and ends with two different people in Babylon.

Therefore, there are 41 people mentioned not 42. The fosus is not on how many individual people there are but on the strucure centering around Babylon using three 14 generation periods.

Atheist seem to have more contradictions than there are verses - and it seems to be still growing - amazing.

Now go play in your atheist sandbox.

Finally got around to looking up that post in this thread. It was on page five.

Anyway: Interesting how you resolved the appearance of discrepancy.

However: I do wonder why Matthew mentioned Zara at all.

If Zara was counted being a twin born with Phares for some reason: then that would make the 14 generation TO David but excluding David.

Thus why David is mentioned in the second grouping as FROM David as in starting from David TO Jechoniah but excluding Jechoniah is the 14 generations of the second grouping.

Then Jechoniah to Jesus Christ would make the 14 generations right there.

I believe Zara is the variable that is throwing the whole categorizing off.

I can almost agree with your presentation, but then again: Zara is not counted and yet Matthew, a tax collector, counted him.

Makes me wonder if tax collectors were utilized for the census. If so, then would that affect how one looks at a family tree, especially when twins are borned?

Granted, you could say that twins are not counted as two generations, but yet why mention Zara at all?

Just wondering if Matthew being a tax collector had anything to do with "how" he was counting "all" the generations from Abraham to Christ.

[lifertexan]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I have only been in a conversation with IW no other issues have I tried to defend or articulate. I have been no more civil or uncivilized than you or anyone

Really?Well,let's look at a sampling of tidbits from you,from just today only.



"Ilene - you were done a long time ago."


"Either she is intentionally deceptive, does not comprehend things very well, or she seriously has mental problems. She was all over the place. If the latter then like I said - sorry."



"Forgive me if you have a serious mental probelm, if so I am truly sorry - if not there is not much more to say - you just do not get it."


"Delusional - Am I in a multiverse somewhere. MG."


"Thanks for proving my points IW - When did I ever mentioned ET - now you are just being deceptive or lying through your teeth in order to side step the real issue here. Prideful are we."


"It is clear that you either do not have the intellectual capacity to discern what is being argued and what is not or you are blinded by your prejudices and emotions so that you ramble on about things I am not concerned with. "


"Ilene, you are a child - go play in the sand box "


Imagine what I would find if I wanted to go to another thread,or back past today only.You do seem to have some issues with needing to insult others to build your own talking points up.

Originally Posted by lifertexan

Really?Well,let's look at a sampling of tidbits from you,from just today only.



"Ilene - you were done a long time ago."


"Either she is intentionally deceptive, does not comprehend things very well, or she seriously has mental problems. She was all over the place. If the latter then like I said - sorry."



"Forgive me if you have a serious mental probelm, if so I am truly sorry - if not there is not much more to say - you just do not get it."


"Delusional - Am I in a multiverse somewhere. MG."


"Thanks for proving my points IW - When did I ever mentioned ET - now you are just being deceptive or lying through your teeth in order to side step the real issue here. Prideful are we."


"It is clear that you either do not have the intellectual capacity to discern what is being argued and what is not or you are blinded by your prejudices and emotions so that you ramble on about things I am not concerned with. "


"Ilene, you are a child - go play in the sand box "


Imagine what I would find if I wanted to go to another thread,or back past today only.

And why don't you go through IW's posts like you did mine and find similar remarks and put it in context???

By all means go and dig up dirt if that is your calling. It's obvious that you are attempting to prejudice my dialogue with IW by ignoring her posts. You are also possibly trying to prejudice other peoples opinion about me. HMMMM! Wonder what your God says about that?

When someone is responding in an irrational manner and accusing me of having a position I never had then those are fair assumptions - I did give many possibilties to her bizarre misunderstandings and accuastions.

[SmalltownKSgirl]

Aren't there supposed to be some moderators around here?

[LargeKingCat]

Well, to the OP let me point out a Context issue if I may please be so bold.
The Gospel of Matthew was written anywhere from 70 to 100 AD. While it is the first book of the New testament, it was the Second Synoptic Gospel written. It is not, as many believe, written by the Matthew who was one of Jesus' disciples (unl;ess he was 100 years old at the time, very unlikely) It is a gospel According to him, transcribed at the end of the century, based again on the Oral Tradition. As Christianity Evolved through the decades, and changed, we see notable changes in Christian events and history. BUT REMEMBER the writer had an agenda of trying to prove that Jesus of Nazareth WAS IN FACT the promised Messiah, fortold in myth and legend of the ancient Jewish People.
Now I won't go into the Cultural mythology of the Messiah, and the fact that it is a Myth, not a reality, but I will point out that gospel writers HAD to change events around to give creedence to the divinity of their character. One example you did not mention also in Matthew was the slaughter of the Innocents by Herod. (fortold in the ancient Jewish Tribal tales) We know now, through archeological records, that this event never happened. Herod never ordered all the male babies killed at a certain time. But we do know that 100 or so years later, the scribe writing the Gospel according to Matthew had to include this as it had become part of the myth and legend of the early Christian experience. SO revising lineage, as you mentioned in the first post, was probably not only part of this agenda, but a practice shared by gospel writers.

Originally Posted by Enow

Finally got around to looking up that post in this thread. It was on page five.

Anyway: Interesting how you resolved the appearance of discrepancy.

However: I do wonder why Matthew mentioned Zara at all.

If Zara was counted being a twin born with Phares for some reason: then that would make the 14 generation TO David but excluding David.

Thus why David is mentioned in the second grouping as FROM David as in starting from David TO Jechoniah but excluding Jechoniah is the 14 generations of the second grouping.

Then Jechoniah to Jesus Christ would make the 14 generations right there.

I believe Zara is the variable that is throwing the whole categorizing off.

I can almost agree with your presentation, but then again: Zara is not counted and yet Matthew, a tax collector, counted him.

Makes me wonder if tax collectors were utilized for the census. If so, then would that affect how one looks at a family tree, especially when twins are borned?

Granted, you could say that twins are not counted as two generations, but yet why mention Zara at all?

Just wondering if Matthew being a tax collector had anything to do with "how" he was counting "all" the generations from Abraham to Christ.

I think I follow you:

As to the first issue I think it is clear that Matt. does not intend to count Zerah. As to why he mentioned him - who knows - but whatever the reason it does not lend itself to the OP's contention.

As to the second issue, I think it is up to Matt. to choose which name he starts with in Babylon. If you include Jechoniah in verse 11 then you need to exclude him in verse 12; if you exclude him in verse 11 then you need to include him in verse 12.

I think verse 17 is the reason why - where Matt. clearly uses David twice but that is not so clear in Verses 11-12 because he is not using a name for the boundary of the second or third set of 14 but Babylon it self. That is why I interpreted it that way.

Josiah is the one carried away so he ends the 2nd grouping at him but starts the third with his son who was also in Babylon. Note in verse 11 that Jechoniah is mentioned in relation to his brothers - his father is the focus of the framework of the grouping. It was Josiah who begot Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the carrying away - thatis why he mentions him here. You can play with it both ways but Jechoniah has to be excluded in one of the last two groupings.

I hope that helps - you brought up some good points though.

[lifertexan]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

And why don't you go through IW's posts like you did mine and find similar remarks and put it in context???

Why don't you?I have read IW's post for months and know how she posts,and it is nothing like the insults you fling daily.Nothing I quoted was even from yesterday.I think she may have called you a chicken once.But if you want to prove IW is anywhere near as insulting as you do it yourself.If I thought IW was continually insulting I would have already pointed that out.But her style is well known,and yours is becoming known also.And both styles speak volumes about the fruits of the Spirit shown by each.

You are also possibly trying to prejudice other peoples opinion about me. HMMMM! Wonder what your God says about that?

All that is really necessary is to let people read your own words.You do the job of showing your arse well enough on your own.That's the beauty of just copying your own words.And I am not the least bit worried about "my" God getting upset at me for showing others how rude,insulting,and mean spirited you are.That is about on par with expecting "my" God to get mad at me for calling the police on a burglar.

Originally Posted by lifertexan

Why don't you?I have read IW's post for months and know how she posts,and it is nothing like the insults you fling daily.Nothing I quoted was even from yesterday.I think she may have called you a chicken once.But if you want to prove IW is anywhere near as insulting as you do it yourself.If I thought IW was continually insulting I would have already pointed that out.But her style is well known,and yours is becoming known also.And both styles speak volumes about the fruits of the Spirit shown by each.




All that is really necessary is to let people read your own words.You do the job of showing your arse well enough on your own.That's the beauty of just copying your own words.And I am not the least bit worried about "my" God getting upset at me for showing others how rude,insulting,and mean spirited you are.That is about on par with expecting "my" God to get mad at me for calling the police on a burglar.

So now it is a everyday

So now it is a quantitative issue

Judging me as not having any fruits of the Spirit.

My arse is fine but it is you who seem to be very unspiritual.

Nice accusations - sound very hypocritical and mean spirited, rude, and insulting.

So now my actions are akin to being criminal.

Here are more quotes from you:

'Actually,you do seem to have some problems.'

'Like being able to carry on a civil discussion without insulting those that will not agree with you.'

'It also seems you hold a grudge...'

'All in all,not a person I would have given a moments thought to following into Christianity had you been the one trying to witness to me as a nonbeliever.'

'I have seen nothing giving me any indication of any kind of spiritual example worth wanting to follow or know where the good fruits came from.'

Sounds like you know how to let em fly as well - Christian.