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.
RESPONSE: I'm curious how this claim originated. Women are not included in genealogies since tribal affiliations are exclusively masculine.
Besides the begetting of the person was always from male "seed" (sperm) which the female lacked
The female merely nurtured the developing offspring provided that she was "fertile" and not "barren."
Also Mary is no mentioned in either Matthew's or Luke's genealogies.
It stems purely from an attempt within mainstream Christianity to make up forty-two generations because according to the purely physical minded understanding of the passage there cannot be counted forty-two generations, (while the passage clearly states that there are indeed forty-two generations). It is amazingly profound that mainstream Christianity cannot even make it past the first chapter of the first book in the N/T without a contradiction in their theology.
It stems purely from an attempt within mainstream Christianity to make up forty-two generations because according to the purely physical minded understanding of the passage there cannot be counted forty-two generations, (while the passage clearly states that there are indeed forty-two generations). It is amazingly profound that mainstream Christianity cannot even make it past the first chapter of the first book in the N/T without a contradiction in their theology.
The scribes of old had a rather peculiar way of keeping track of generations. For example the genealogy in the fifth chapter of Genesis is incomplete, another in the first nine chapters of 1Chronicles is incomplete and so is Ezra 7:1-5.
That kind of record-keeping makes no sense whatsoever to the academic mind, but when encountering ancient cultures, it's best not to jump to conclusions.
BTW: I have no clue why you insist upon putting the blame on "mainstream Christianity" when both the old and new testaments of the Bible were written by Jews. But it's certain you will make no progress in your attempt to discredit the Bible by jousting windmills.
The scribes of old had a rather peculiar way of keeping track of generations. For example the genealogy in the fifth chapter of Genesis is incomplete, another in the first nine chapters of 1Chronicles is incomplete and so is Ezra 7:1-5.
That kind of record-keeping makes no sense whatsoever to the academic mind, but when encountering ancient cultures, it's best not to jump to conclusions.
BTW: I have no clue why you insist upon putting the blame on "mainstream Christianity" when both the old and new testaments of the Bible were written by Jews. But it's certain you will make no progress in your attempt to discredit the Bible by jousting windmills.
/
Was I indeed discrediting "the Bible"? Where did I say anything about discrediting the scripture? There are exactly forty-two generations in the first chapter of Matthew the way it stands right now, (as I read it).
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.
