Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My Bible is a direct translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts with footnotes on words that could have an alternative translation.
What translation do you use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice
In my Bible they are not italicized.
This is a good reason to use several different translations for study purposes.
The words “the son” should be italicized indicating that these words are not in the original transcripts, they were added as part of the translating process for “clarity”.
God Bless,
Marc Ephesians 4 Forum A closed mind neither learns nor teaches
Heli being Mary's father by your reckoning. In fact ,why does it put Joseph in there at all? Why not go directly from Heli to Jesus and skip that generation as you say they did?
In Hebrew custom in instances when a father had no sons it was customary for the father, in this case Heli - Mary’s father, to “adopt” his daughter’s husband for inheritances purposes. It was requested by The Daughters of Zelophehad of Moses and granted (Numbers 27:1-11).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice
And could you point out another chapter in the Bible that identifies Heli as Mary's father.
Heli is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice
Maybe an alternative view might be that one of these geneologies is wrong because they both claim to come through Joseph.
Both genealogies are accurate and correct when understood as being traced through Joseph’s (legal linage) in Matthew and Mary’s (physical linage) in Luke. These explanations can be harmonized through the Old Testament, New Testament and secular historical custom. gwynedd1 has provided a great deal of evidence to support this explanation.
God Bless,
Marc
Christian Fellowship (http://compassoc.com/eph4-13/ - broken link)
Ephesians 4 Forum (http://compassoc.com/eph4-13/ - broken link) A closed mind neither learns nor teaches
The lineage of Jesus is recorded in two places: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:28-38. It seems as if these two genealogies of Jesus contradict. Do they? Most biblical scholars assume that Luke is referring to the genealogy of Mary and that the genealogy recorded in Matthew is of Joseph. The Matthew genealogy follows Joseph's line (Jesus' legal father), through David's son Solomon. Luke follows Mary's line (Jesus' blood mother), through David's son Nathan.
Through both of these lines, Jesus Christ is David's descendant and is eligible to be the promised Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother's line is somewhat unusual, but the virgin birth is unusual as well!
In Hebrew custom in instances when a father had no sons it was customary for the father, in this case Heli - Mary’s father, to “adopt” his daughter’s husband for inheritances purposes. It was requested by The Daughters of Zelophehad of Moses and granted (Numbers 27:1-11).
Heli is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.
Both genealogies are accurate and correct when understood as being traced through Joseph’s (legal linage) in Matthew and Mary’s (physical linage) in Luke. These explanations can be harmonized through the Old Testament, New Testament and secular historical custom. gwynedd1 has provided a great deal of evidence to support this explanation.
God Bless,
Marc
Christian Fellowship (http://compassoc.com/eph4-13/ - broken link)
Ephesians 4 Forum (http://compassoc.com/eph4-13/ - broken link) A closed mind neither learns nor teaches
So by your own admission it is not shown anywhere that Heli is Mary's father. You are also assuming that he has no sons because I have seen no reference to that fact. Whereas the Bible says that Joseph IS his son, not adopted or in law...just says it straight out. So while it might be convenient to conclude these things they are not actually supported anywhere. It's just vague references and assumptions based on the wish to believe.
So by your own admission it is not shown anywhere that Heli is Mary's father. You are also assuming that he has no sons because I have seen no reference to that fact. Whereas the Bible says that Joseph IS his son, not adopted or in law...just says it straight out.
You conveniently overlooked this statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt & Light
Both genealogies are accurate and correct when understood as being traced through Joseph’s (legal linage) in Matthew and Mary’s (physical linage) in Luke. These explanations can be harmonized through the Old Testament, New Testament and secular historical custom. gwynedd1 has provided a great deal of evidence to support this explanation.
This is the part that requires a commitment to personal study. I admit that that is the hard part, but is well worth the effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice
So while it might be convenient to conclude these things they are not actually supported anywhere. It's just vague references and assumptions based on the wish to believe.
Understand that “conveniently concluding”, "assuming" and "wishing to believe", there is a contradiction which has not been scrutinized and confirmed as a contradiction over the last 2000 years is exactly where you are at until you take the time to study the topic and understand:
Why it is not a contradiction, or
Come up with compelling evidence that centuries of scholarly research on the topic overlooked.
Either of these two options requires sincere study of God’s word; wouldn’t you agree?
I actually really like this description. It does point out to me where I was wrong. Being male dominated culture of course they would go through only the male names. Thankyou for such a detailed reply.
There is only one thing that still doesn't make sense. Luke says that Jesus was the son ,or so it was thought, of Joseph. You point out that this means "in law" or words to that effect. Why then does it not say the Joseph was the son "in law" of Heli?
Now you know why I trust single English translations very little. The context is very clear to me that it was trying to say in-law.
Quote:
Heli being Mary's father by your reckoning. In fact ,why does it put Joseph in there at all?
Because that is how the Jesus would be identified as the son of Joseph, but Jesus would trace though either line. Females are not listed in genealogies. He would be known as Jesus the son of Joseph.
Quote:
Why not go directly from Heli to Jesus and skip that generation as you say they did?
Most surnames attempt to identify the male line even in our culture. Since the identity of Jesus would be Jesus son of Joseph it would be confusing to create a genealogy starting with Heli. Jesus is the son of Joseph and has two family lines.
Quote:
And could you point out another chapter in the Bible that identifies Heli as Mary's father. Maybe an alternative view might be that one of these geneologies is wrong because they both claim to come through Joseph. My Bible is a direct translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts with footnotes on words that could have an alternative translation.
If you cannot accept that the Greek word used means "by law" and can assume such a massive error would go unnoticed, as I said, please do. I have no reason to do it since most of the evidence is the other way. Mary was not a central figure notwithstanding some of the Catholics who have it otherwise.
Quote:
One other question, why would God allow his word to be translated erroneously, isn't that in itself a contradiction?
If you believe in the complete inerrant nature of scripture I suppose. I believe we were given sufficient knowledge. Prophets were men inspired by God and translators are translators. Even Kings and Chronicles do not always agree. The agreement is still rather impressive and Josephus remarked on this compared to the Greeks for example. So I do see minor mistakes and we have minor differences in ancient manuscripts. That is why I believe the difference on genealogies as a mistake would be an unprecedented scale even without all the other evidence.
Its not really a strong argument that rests on English translations(in this case partially). The use of the word the Greek "ge" used for earth is an especially sore point with me and many other Bible readers just assume they really know what it means because they see it as is in their KJV as "earth". Its not "the earth" any more than earth moving equipment is "the earth" .
A very quick look at this subject on the internet shows that there are quite a few theories out there that try to offer an explanation. Some say it is difference in spelling , some say Matthew's was a fabrication to show the correct number of generations in order to fit Jesus into the prophecies , some put it down to customs of the day and only one carries this theory that seems to be favoured on here that Lukes genealogy is through Mary. To say that this problem has not been noticed in the past is incorrect.People have been trying to iron out this wrinkle for quite some time and still they don't agree on which version they will go with. People who are not Christian can see the obvious fact that it just doesn't add up, someone made a mistake and left a big hole on the storyline. Trying to fill it in with assumptions and guess work only serve to highlight the error. If Luke's genealogy was through Mary surely he would just say so or at least make reference to Heli being her father.He doesn't so no matter what conviluted stories you come up with there is no way to prove this theory to be true. You also seem to neglect the fact that the Quran has a record of Mary's family and lists her father as a fellow called Imran. In the end you will believe what you wish, but it doesn't make it true.
People need to stop seeing the bible as some kind of accurate historical record, it is not that at all. It is full of mythology and moral tales, there may be a loose connection to some historical events but even that is in doubt. Why not just accept it for what it is, a religious document, and understand that the stories are there to instruct on religious doctrine not to inform about history or even historical figures. Why does your faith depend so much on it being literally true? Some of you seem to spend a lot of your time studying these things and trying to fit square pegs into round holes just to make it true. It only makes it true in your mind it doesn't convince anyone else, give it up already and just go back to having blind faith...in the end it's a lot more credible.
A very quick look at this subject on the internet shows that there are quite a few theories out there that try to offer an explanation. Some say it is difference in spelling , some say Matthew's was a fabrication to show the correct number of generations in order to fit Jesus into the prophecies , some put it down to customs of the day and only one carries this theory that seems to be favoured on here that Lukes genealogy is through Mary. To say that this problem has not been noticed in the past is incorrect.People have been trying to iron out this wrinkle for quite some time and still they don't agree on which version they will go with. People who are not Christian can see the obvious fact that it just doesn't add up, someone made a mistake and left a big hole on the storyline. Trying to fill it in with assumptions and guess work only serve to highlight the error. If Luke's genealogy was through Mary surely he would just say so or at least make reference to Heli being her father.He doesn't so no matter what conviluted stories you come up with there is no way to prove this theory to be true. You also seem to neglect the fact that the Quran has a record of Mary's family and lists her father as a fellow called Imran. In the end you will believe what you wish, but it doesn't make it true.
People need to stop seeing the bible as some kind of accurate historical record, it is not that at all. It is full of mythology and moral tales, there may be a loose connection to some historical events but even that is in doubt. Why not just accept it for what it is, a religious document, and understand that the stories are there to instruct on religious doctrine not to inform about history or even historical figures. Why does your faith depend so much on it being literally true? Some of you seem to spend a lot of your time studying these things and trying to fit square pegs into round holes just to make it true. It only makes it true in your mind it doesn't convince anyone else, give it up already and just go back to having blind faith...in the end it's a lot more credible.
1 Corinthians 15:14, - (New International Version)
Quote:
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
"If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
John 18:38 - (New International Version)
Quote:
"What is truth?", Pilates asked. . . .
Matthew 27:24 - (New International Version)
Quote:
" . . . . When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, . . . . he took water and washed his hands and in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood", he said, "it is your responsibility."
You might as well wash your hands of this thread and go out and eat, drink and be Merry, for tomorrow everyone's gonna die anway ???
Seriously though, eat , drink and be merry in your life, since eventually you are only going to die anyway. You are certainly not alone in your version of truth. I believe over half the population of the planet feel the same way. I would also take a stab at saying that a large portion of religious people feel the same , judging by lifestyles.
Last edited by bluepacific; 12-16-2008 at 02:41 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
