Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

You Say You Want An Evolution!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The applicable section for a genealogy is history. The genealogy supplied by Matthew is demonstrably inaccurate. Nothing in the Bible resolves its conflict with Luke and with the Old Testament records.

    We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.


    That's a nice touch. But even that declaration acknowledges (to a limited extent) the facts.
    Assuming for the sake of argument that there is no current solution to this, do you think, perhaps, that Matthew just flat out screwed up and wrote something that is false and irreconcilable with actual history and therefore represents a genuine error in the inspired Word of God? Or would you suppose there is a piece of information that is inaccessible to us that would make perfect sense of it?
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      Well, if the Levirate marriage solution is the correct one (and I'm not even convinced it is, I just provided it as an alternative), then the term "begat", or "fathered" doesn't really exclude it as an option at all. All it would tell us is that Matthew gives us Joseph's biological father ("Jacob begat Joseph"), while Luke gives us his legal father ("Joseph, the son of Heli"). While I'm not personally convinced of the Levirate marriage solution, your objection is simply not valid.


      First of all, your obsession about the term "begat" is making you miss the bigger picture. Matthew uses the word translated as "begat", true, but Luke doesn't, so on that count your objection loses it's entire force.
      ενομιζετο υιος ιωσηφ του ηλι 24 του ματθατ του λευι του μελχι του ιαννα του ιωσηφ ... deemed the son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi ... Agreed - my argument is invalid. Though the reason for my mistake is based on the high probability of Matthews account being incorrect - I simply didn't look at Luke's account.

      When it comes to Number 27:1-11 and Numbers 36:1-12 it's true that it doesn't explicitly say that the men who married Zelophehad's daughters were counted as his sons, but that's only an issue if you ignore the passages that I (or rather the article which I referenced) provided to show that at least in some cases marrying the daughter of a man with no sons meant becoming the legal heir/descendant/son of that man. The men mentioned in Ezra 2:61 where not biologically sons of Barzillai, but they were still counted as such via marriage to his daughters.
      Even the article in question speaks only to inheritence, not to legally instituted sonship.
      Then there is this snippet
      Judging by the precedent of the daughters of Zelophehad, Sheshan’s name and property would have passed to his son-in-law.
      unless the property did not pass to the husband, but to the husband's heirs (through the wife). In the event of a divorce, the husband would not retain the property (AFAICT).

      Also
      Barzillai the Gileadite, so well known in the history of David (2 Sam. 17:27, 19:32–39; 1 Kings 2:7), and had taken her name for the sake of taking possession of her inheritance
      has been pulled out of thin air. The Barzillai II took the name of her father, not her name - and no reason is stated for him doing so.

      The missing generations in Matthew's genealogy doesn't really provide an issue, since the word "begat" doesn't necessitate a father-to-son relationship between the "begotter" and the "begotten". A grandson could also be "begotten" by his grandfather. As long as there was a direct line of descent then X could be considered to have "begotten" Y.
      To the best of my knowledge, no such possibility is cited any ancient documents by way of support (no claim here that I have seen every possible document - just that no citations that I have seen refer to any primary source.)

      So Matthew omitting a few people from his genealogy, for rhetorical/pedagogical (as the article I'm referencing puts it) purposes, does not show a contradiction between Matthew's genealogy and the OT.
      Based on what I have seen from you to date, were it in any other document, you wouldn't be saying it doesn't show a contradiction.
      It's possible he omitted some names in order to make the list easier to memorize, and as for the 3x14 that could just be Matthew making a rhetorical point through gematria (David in Hebrew having a number value of 14).
      That would make it WORSE - it would mean that he was playing with numerology.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Assuming for the sake of argument that there is no current solution to this, do you think, perhaps, that Matthew just flat out screwed up and wrote something that is false and irreconcilable with actual history and therefore represents a genuine error in the inspired Word of God? Or would you suppose there is a piece of information that is inaccessible to us that would make perfect sense of it?
        I mean, the passages that I've referred to doesn't show conclusively that a man could be considered the son of his wife's father (though they do raise the possibility), but tabibito's objections are making me quite baffled. "These passages doesn't literally say X" doesn't mean X cannot be inferred, or conjectured from the aforementioned passages, especially when you take the context (historical, cultural and textual) into consideration and when viewed not in isolation, but as each passage providing independent support for the argument.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          They also said

          We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          That's a nice touch. But even that declaration acknowledges (to a limited extent) the facts.
          It is also something to keep in mind when someone questions whether examinations of God's creation should be ignored when interpreting Scripture.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            I mean, the passages that I've referred to doesn't show conclusively that a man could be considered the son of his wife's father (though they do raise the possibility), but tabibito's objections are making me quite baffled. "These passages doesn't literally say X" doesn't mean X cannot be inferred, or conjectured from the aforementioned passages, especially when you take the context (historical, cultural and textual) into consideration and when viewed not in isolation, but as each passage providing independent support for the argument.
            Perhaps more from the article you cited is in order:

            Also from the same article:
            5] There are two common attempts made to resolve these contradictions. The most common among evangelical Christians is to claim that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, not Joseph. This fails to explain the repeated convergence followed by divergence as you trace the ancestry backward.


            The points of convergence in the geneo's were two: once at S+Z and once at Joseph. I have already argued above that the S+Z is NOT A CONVERGENCE, and that the 'convergence' at Joseph is NOT 'genetic' but BY MARRIAGE.
            In short - two completely different lines finish at Joseph.

            It also fails to explain why the Luke genealogy contains almost twice as many ancestors as Matthew's in the same time period.
            Two completely different lines: this doesn't even begin to present a problem. Over that period of time, predominantly senior branches through the longer line, and predominantly cadet branches through the shorter line would easily result in that kind of difference.

            The phenomena of the different size/structure of the lists were explained above as due to a simple pedagogical/rhetorical technique of Matthew (common in his day). Not a problem.
            Again, primary texts are not expected to produce the concept of "not a problem" - accurate genealogies were highly, even critically, important in second temple times - as the cited article itself makes clear.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              It is also something to keep in mind when someone questions whether examinations of God's creation should be ignored when interpreting Scripture.
              Indeed. Oddly enough, a few of my lecturers have been disappointed when I present resolutions to apparent conflicts in the scriptures. A few of them have simply looked shocked. Then there was one who even e-mailed me a thankyou for the resolution to the Jezreel paradox (my turn to express shock). Of course, there have been two occasions when I've been presented with something like what Chrawnus just did and I've had to retract an argument. TWeb is good ground for cutting teeth on getting exegesis right.
              Last edited by tabibito; 04-12-2019, 02:48 PM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Even the article in question speaks only to inheritence, not to legally instituted sonship.
                Then there is this snippet
                Judging by the precedent of the daughters of Zelophehad, Sheshan’s name and property would have passed to his son-in-law.
                unless the property did not pass to the husband, but to the husband's heirs (through the wife). In the event of a divorce, the husband would not retain the property (AFAICT).
                At least Paul seems to think inheritance and son/kinship is closely tied together, just look at Gal 3:15-4:7. We're heirs of God because we are (adopted) sons through faith. His argument wouldn't carry nearly as much force if inheritance and kinship wasn't closely tied together in the time and culture of the people to which he's writing his letter.

                In the first place the very word "inheritance" implies kinship. Normally you inherit from the people you're related (legally) to, so if you acquire someone's inheritance it would imply that you've entered some kind of legal relation-/kinship with the person you're inheriting from. Admittedly this is not always so, as there are cases where people inherit without being taken into the family, but that only weakens the argument, it doesn't completely nullify or refute it. And I'm not sure if family inheritance could be passed on to a person who was not biologically related to the family without said person having to be legally adopted in to that family. If something like that could be shown from antiquity then your whole distinction between "inheritance" and "sonship" would carry much more weight.


                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Also has been pulled out of thin air. The Barzillai II took the name of her father, not her name - and no reason is stated for him doing so.
                Well, as I pointed out, the passage in question said "had taken their name", "not that name", which would imply that he had taken the name of Barzillai and his daughters, i.e the name of Barzillai's family. So no, it's not pulled out of thin air. You just didn't bother to check the translations thoroughly enough.

                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                To the best of my knowledge, no such possibility is cited any ancient documents by way of support (no claim here that I have seen every possible document - just that no citations that I have seen refer to any primary source.)
                Well, I cannot find support for Miller's statement about gaps in genealogies in the the article itself, but in another one of his article (http://christianthinktank.com/stealtime.html#noah), he cites and references several works. If you search for "In the Western practice of drawing up family trees" using ctrl + f you'll arrive at the first citation from scholarly works that seem to be relevant for this issue (although there are other citations above as well, and you might want to take a look at them as well).

                In any case there does seem to be some kind of consensus among scholars that gaps/omissions in ANE genealogies were not a rare thing, and certainly not only limited to the Israelites.

                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Based on what I have seen from you to date, were it in any other document, you wouldn't be saying it doesn't show a contradiction.
                I doubt you can show a single post from me that would justify this assessment of me.

                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                That would make it WORSE - it would mean that he was playing with numerology.
                So was John when he mentioned the number of the beast in Revelation. That numbers can be used as ciphers and symbols in the Bible is pretty self-evident. It's only when you obsess too much about them, or start using interpreting them in mystical/magical/occult ways that it starts to become problematic. But I don't see any problems with assigning symbolic meanings behind certain numbers, especially not when the bible itself does that.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  At least Paul seems to think inheritance and son/kinship is closely tied together, just look at Gal 3:15-4:7. We're heirs of God because we are (adopted) sons through faith.
                  Exactly so - the passage makes it clear that this sonship is not derived through the ordinary biological process.

                  παντες γαρ υιοι θεου εστε δια της πιστεως εν χριστω ιησου
                  Gal 3:26
                  all - for - sons - God - you(pl) are - through - the - faith - in - Christ - Jesus.
                  Certainly states that you are all sons, and not by ordinary every-day begetting.
                  Gal 3:29
                  ει δε υμεις χριστου αρα του αβρααμ σπερμα εστε και κατ επαγγελιαν κληρονομοι
                  if - and - you(pl) - of Christ - therefore - ... - of Abraham - descendants - and - according to - promise - inheritors
                  Certainly states that being in Christ makes you descendants of Abraham and heirs to the promise. ... once again, "not by ordinary every-day begetting" is explicit.
                  Gal 4:5
                  ινα τους υπο νομον εξαγοραση ινα την υιοθεσιαν απολαβωμεν
                  so that - the - under/by - law - he might/could redeem - so that - the - placement as son - we might/could receive
                  More or less states that we (each) receive the chance of placement as a son (seems likely that the UBS5 might have sons here - which would eliminate the need for "each") ... context makes it readily apparent that this is "not by ordinary every-day begetting"
                  Verses 6 and 7 likewise refer to sonship, with the immediate context making it clear that it is not a sonship of the ordinary type.


                  His argument wouldn't carry nearly as much force if inheritance and kinship wasn't closely tied together in the time and culture of the people to which he's writing his letter.
                  The people of the time certainly also had a very strong understanding of the difference between adopted son and Levirate sonship (note - the son was not the son of the surviving brother) and ordinarily procreated son. If Joseph had been the son of a Levirate marriage, he would have been the deceased brother's son ... and in the highly unlikely event that the physical father was nominated, that fact would have been noted.

                  In the first place the very word "inheritance" implies kinship. Normally you inherit from the people you're related (legally) to, so if you acquire someone's inheritance it would imply that you've entered some kind of legal relation-/kinship with the person you're inheriting from. Admittedly this is not always so, as there are cases where people inherit without being taken into the family, but that only weakens the argument, it doesn't completely nullify or refute it. And I'm not sure if family inheritance could be passed on to a person who was not biologically related to the family without said person having to be legally adopted in to that family. If something like that could be shown from antiquity then your whole distinction between "inheritance" and "sonship" would carry much more weight.
                  I can see that adoption into the family would include marrying into the family. But where marrying into a family is concerned the term "son in law" would apply. Not that I can swear to it - but I'm fairly sure that the Hebrew system of adoption (as a son, but not into the family) would prevent marriage (on grounds of incest).


                  Well, as I pointed out, the passage in question said "had taken their name", "not that name", which would imply that he had taken the name of Barzillai and his daughters, i.e the name of Barzillai's family. So no, it's not pulled out of thin air. You just didn't bother to check the translations thoroughly enough.
                  True enough ... not all translations are so careful with exactitude, and I chose one that wasn't.



                  Well, I cannot find support for Miller's statement about gaps in genealogies in the the article itself, but in another one of his article (http://christianthinktank.com/stealtime.html#noah), he cites and references several works. If you search for "In the Western practice of drawing up family trees" using ctrl + f you'll arrive at the first citation from scholarly works that seem to be relevant for this issue (although there are other citations above as well, and you might want to take a look at them as well).
                  I'm well aware that scholarly works abound on this issue. What I haven't seen are citations of primary sources. Those would be written in Koine Greek or Hebrew (or Aramaic).

                  In any case there does seem to be some kind of consensus among scholars that gaps/omissions in ANE genealogies were not a rare thing, and certainly not only limited to the Israelites.
                  You would be amazed at the kind of things that gain consensus among scholars.



                  I doubt you can show a single post from me that would justify this assessment of me.
                  That wasn't intended as an insult. I doubt that you could see a contradiction anywhere else and not acknowledge it for what it was.

                  So was John when he mentioned the number of the beast in Revelation. That numbers can be used as ciphers and symbols in the Bible is pretty self-evident. It's only when you obsess too much about them, or start using interpreting them in mystical/magical/occult ways that it starts to become problematic. But I don't see any problems with assigning symbolic meanings behind certain numbers, especially not when the bible itself does that.
                  I don't see a correlation between John's mention of 666 or 7 as necessarily a call to gnosticism: there's no (evident) bending of fact to make it conform to some numerologically significant pattern. I would much prefer to believe that Matthew simply goofed than believe he deliberately massages the facts ... but that's my bent.
                  Last edited by tabibito; 04-12-2019, 04:29 PM.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    The people of the time certainly also had a very strong understanding of the difference between adopted son and Levirate sonship (note - the son was not the son of the surviving brother) and ordinarily procreated son. If Joseph had been the son of a Levirate marriage, he would have been the deceased brother's son ... and in the highly unlikely event that the physical father was nominated, that fact would have been noted.
                    Just to be clear, the "levirate marriage" and "adopted through marriage" arguments are two separate/alternative arguments. I'm not proposing that both of them are true at the same time. Or even that any of them are true. Only that there are ways to resolve the conflicts that have to be looked at and evaluated before anyone claims that these conflicts have been demonstrated beyond doubt, and that they aren't just apparent/seeming conflicts.

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    I can see that adoption into the family would include marrying into the family. But where marrying into a family is concerned the term "son in law" would apply. Not that I can swear to it - but I'm fairly sure that the Hebrew system of adoption (as a son, but not into the family) would prevent marriage (on grounds of incest).
                    Yes, if there was a reference in antiquity to someone being married into a family and being adopted as the son of the head of that family, then the whole "adopted through marriage" case would certainly look a lot stronger. I'm not sure what relevance your comment about the Hebrew system of adoption has to the argument though. The argument is specifically that Joseph was adopted as a son, into the family, through marriage. I'm not really sure how issues of incest would factor in to that, surely everyone knew that Mary's father wasn't Joseph's actual biological father.


                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    I'm well aware that scholarly works abound on this issue. What I haven't seen are citations of primary sources. Those would be written in Koine Greek or Hebrew (or Aramaic).
                    It could be well worth it to try and send an email (assuming their email address is publicly available) to the authors of the books that Miller references in his articles, and asking them for primary sources for their claims about gaps in the ANE genealogies. It might be that this issue is such a well-accepted tenet in the scholarly world that they didn't feel the need to document it however.

                    In any case, here's a link to all the abbreviations that Miller uses in his articles, and what books they refer to. Perhaps it's possible to hunt down some of the authors' email addresses using that list?

                    http://christianthinktank.com/bookabs.html

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    You would be amazed at the kind of things that gain consensus among scholars.
                    I'm not completely clueless about such things. In this case however I feel like, at least on the face of it, that there is not much reason to doubt these claims.

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    That wasn't intended as an insult. I doubt that you could see a contradiction anywhere else and not acknowledge it for what it was.
                    If I saw a similar conflict/apparent contradiction in another place I would not immediately conclude that there was errors in one, both, or more sources, until I had sufficient information to make a judgement for certain. I would rather interpret the sources in a way that resolved the conflicts as much as possible, not ignoring any evidence for and against my interpretation, of course.

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    I don't see a correlation between John's mention of 666 or 7 as necessarily a call to gnosticism: there's no (evident) bending of fact to make it conform to some numerologically significant pattern. I would much prefer to believe that Matthew simply goofed than believe he deliberately massages the facts ... but that's my bent.
                    Well, I don't see any call to gnosticism in Matthew, or massaging of facts either. I see it more as rhetorical device to any listener/reader who would be cognizant enough to pick up on it. He could be deliberately arranging his genealogy into 3 groups of 14 (the number of David) to lay claim on the royal lineage on behalf of Jesus.
                    Last edited by JonathanL; 04-13-2019, 03:57 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      Just to be clear, the "levirate marriage" and "adopted through marriage" arguments are two separate/alternative arguments. I'm not proposing that both of them are true at the same time. Or even that any of them are true.
                      Nor did I think you were. Levirate marriage would make Joseph the son of the deceased brother. If the biological father was mentioned, the distinction would be stipulated.

                      Only that there are ways to resolve the conflicts that have to be looked at and evaluated before anyone claims that these conflicts have been demonstrated beyond doubt, and that they aren't just apparent/seeming conflicts.
                      Which you will note, I am careful to do. As evidence consider the debate about the dimensions of the bath for the first temple, in which you provided evidence supporting my argument. I'll start a new thread on an unrelated issue - compare what I post there with offerings on the that subject that our beloved credentialled scholars dish up.

                      Yes, if there was a reference in antiquity to someone being married into a family and being adopted as the son of the head of that family, then the whole "adopted through marriage" case would certainly look a lot stronger. I'm not sure what relevance your comment about the Hebrew system of adoption has to the argument though. The argument is specifically that Joseph was adopted as a son, into the family, through marriage. I'm not really sure how issues of incest would factor in to that, surely everyone knew that Mary's father wasn't Joseph's actual biological father.
                      The article you cited called on verses from the Bible in support of a claim that the verses in question did not even begin to address. I simply noted circumstances that the verses did address.




                      It could be well worth it to try and send an email (assuming their email address is publicly available) to the authors of the books that Miller references in his articles, and asking them for primary sources for their claims about gaps in the ANE genealogies. It might be that this issue is such a well-accepted tenet in the scholarly world that they didn't feel the need to document it however.
                      And therefore perhaps, the "everyone knows" argument? (argumentum ad populum fallacy) ... Academics aren't immune to it. Still - your recommendation is worth pursuing.

                      In any case, here's a link to all the abbreviations that Miller uses in his articles, and what books they refer to. Perhaps it's possible to hunt down some of the authors' email addresses using that list?
                      It is worth a try.

                      http://christianthinktank.com/bookabs.html



                      I'm not completely clueless about such things. In this case however I feel like, at least on the face of it, that there is not much reason to doubt these claims.
                      One of the claims might be entirely possible. That would do no more than provide a logical reason for the existence of the conflict. It would not (necessarily) affect the existence of the conflict.



                      If I saw a similar conflict/apparent contradiction in another place I would not immediately conclude that there was errors in one, both, or more sources, until I had sufficient information to make a judgement for certain. I would rather interpret the sources in a way that resolved the conflicts as much as possible, not ignoring any evidence for and against my interpretation, of course.
                      Likewise, and when I have searched the source text for a resolution without success, I will admit to an error. Even when someone can demonstrate a logical cause for the error from other sources, the error can't be attributed to that cause unless something in the source text points to that resolution. (I do take the Bible as a whole to be the same text for the exercise. So even there, a certain latitude is given that I might not always allow.



                      Well, I don't see any call to gnosticism in Matthew, or massaging of facts either. I see it more as rhetorical device to any listener/reader who would be cognizant enough to pick up on it. He could be deliberately arranging his genealogy into 3 groups of 14 (the number of David) to lay claim on the royal lineage on behalf of Jesus.
                      Either Matthew is wrong accidentally or deliberately. Had the text shown the list, the skipping generations story might have been sustainable. At first, I accepted it. Then I noticed the explicit statement of a count of 14 generations. The skipping generations story is not viable.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 04-13-2019, 05:40 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • I'll have to redact the text before I make that post. On review, it worked as an appendix for an essay, but in its present form it won't stand alone. There is also the matter of removing citations (for the sake of protecting the guilty.)
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          Nor did I think you were. Levirate marriage would make Joseph the son of the deceased brother. If the biological father was mentioned, the distinction would be stipulated.
                          Would it be? Or would you want it to be?

                          But in any case, a proponent of the levirate marriage theory could argue that the text(s) of Luke and Matthew, when viewed in comparison, do indicate that Matthew traces biological descent ("begat") of Joseph, while Luke traces legal descent ("the son of"). So they could argue that such a distinction is there, not just very explicit.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          Which you will note, I am careful to do. As evidence consider the debate about the dimensions of the bath for the first temple, in which you provided evidence supporting my argument. I'll start a new thread on an unrelated issue - compare what I post there with offerings on the that subject that our beloved credentialled scholars dish up.
                          I do not remember the specific details about the dimensions of the bath for the first temple. I'll take a look at your new thread.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          The article you cited called on verses from the Bible in support of a claim that the verses in question did not even begin to address. I simply noted circumstances that the verses did address.
                          I'm of the opinion that it's justified to understand "inheritance-through-marriage" to mean essentially the same thing as being considered "son-through-marriage", until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. And if the scenario by the "Luke is giving Joseph's legal (through marriage with Mary) genealogy, while Matthew is giving his biological (and thus Jesus' legal genealogy through being adopted by Joseph), is true, then one could argue that unless Joseph became the legal son of Mary's father, then the inheritance would pass on to Joseph as a member of another family line, which is expressly forbidden (or at least viewed as a negative thing) in the OT (eg. Leviticus 25:13 and onwards). So in the case of the verses that I referenced in my previous posts (regarding Zelophehad, Sheshan and Barzillai), we must assume that either the men who took Zelophehad's, Sheshan's and Barzillai (I)'s daughters were counted as legal sons to respective wife's father, or the grandsons of aforementioned fathers were counted as such. Otherwise the inheritance of the respective families would have been incorporated into the inheritance of another family, and thus lost.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          And therefore perhaps, the "everyone knows" argument? (argumentum ad populum fallacy) ... Academics aren't immune to it. Still - your recommendation is worth pursuing.
                          I think it's more like a "the intended readership (scholars and people who are somewhat educated on the matter) are already aware of the sources and arguments for this position, so we won't repeat it here, look at the notes for more information" kind of stance.


                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          One of the claims might be entirely possible. That would do no more than provide a logical reason for the existence of the conflict. It would not (necessarily) affect the existence of the conflict.
                          If by conflict is meant a discrepancy, then no amount of argumentation or research is going to make these "conflicts" go away. What I'm interested in is if these conflicts are errors or mistakes on Matthew's part, or if there are ways to explain these discrepancies that do not automatically assume blunders on the author's part. Discrepancy does not automatically mean error, or mistake.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          Likewise, and when I have searched the source text for a resolution without success, I will admit to an error. Even when someone can demonstrate a logical cause for the error from other sources, the error can't be attributed to that cause unless something in the source text points to that resolution. (I do take the Bible as a whole to be the same text for the exercise. So even there, a certain latitude is given that I might not always allow.
                          I think this is a pretty backwards approach, if I'm to be completely honest. While we do know a fair bit about the cultural and historical setting of 1st century Judea I do not think we know nearly enough about every aspect of it to be able to claim that every "conflict" or discrepancy in the biblical text that we cannot resolve is due to an error. I think that would be to have far too much confidence in our current knowledge about the state of things nearly 2000 years ago.

                          I think being able to show even a possible (as opposed to likely, which admittedly would be preferable) solution to a problem means that the conflict, while not entirely resolved, cannot be deemed to be demonstrated.


                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          Either Matthew is wrong accidentally or deliberately. Had the text shown the list, the skipping generations story might have been sustainable. At first, I accepted it. Then I noticed the explicit statement of a count of 14 generations. The skipping generations story is not viable.
                          Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that Matthew explicitly counts 3 x 14 generations, and therefore he cannot be skipping generations. I'm wholly unconvinced by this line of reasoning, simply because that by itself does not establish that he was providing an exhaustive list of Joseph's ancestral lineage back to Abraham. I'm assuming you have some reason/argument for thinking Matthew's mention of 14 generations means that he could not be skipping generations, but unless you lay it out explicitly for me I won't be able to follow you.

                          Comment


                          • The reasoning is simple enough: there is no evidence to show that a first century reader would read 14 (particularly when the provided list adds up to 14) and expect a different number. Matthew's expectations regarding his intended immediate audience are somewhat relevant. If there was a general tendency to elide two generations, that 14 would stand. Matthew's inexplicable omission is the subject of much conjecture, which demonstrates that no-one can show just cause to disallow the existence of an incorrect number. All we have are bare assertions based on the idea that the Bible can't include errors.

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Just to provide a link for the commentary that I mentioned earlier
                            Last edited by tabibito; 04-14-2019, 09:51 PM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • Getting back to the general conversation...

                              The Bible seems to suggest that Adam's creation is not any different from how the rest of us come about. That we are all made from dust in the image of God
                              • Job 10:8-10: Your hands have shaped me and made me, but now you destroy me completely. Remember that you have made me as with the clay; will you return me to dust? Did you not pour me out like milk, and curdle me like cheese?
                              • Job 33:4–6: The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Reply to me, if you can; set your arguments in order before me and take your stand! Look, I am just like you in relation to God; I too have been molded from clay.
                              • Psalm 103:14: For he knows what we are made of; he realizes we are made of clay.
                              • Ecclesiastes 3:19–20: For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same: As one dies, so dies the other; both have the same breath. There is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting. Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and to dust both return.
                              • Isa. 64:8: Yet, LORD, you are our father. We are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the product of your labor. [cf. Isa. 43:7]
                              • 1 Cor. 15:47–49: The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven. [cf. Eph 4:24]


                              Like Job or David or anyone else, Adam was a clay vessel formed by the hands of the Potter himself, made from the dust in the image of God. So if we are all made from dust/clay, shaped by God and given the breath of the Almighty then this might suggest a literal reading of Adam being made this way might not be the way to go.

                              AFAICT we all are the result of having been given birth to by our mothers (not including "test tube babies" who still come from their genetic material). Yet various passages describe us, like Adam, of having been constructed or shaped out of dust/clay. But being we were created by being born from our parents and not literally constructed out of dust/clay this might suggest that the same may have been true for Adam.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Getting back to the general conversation...

                                The Bible seems to suggest that Adam's creation is not any different from how the rest of us come about. That we are all made from dust in the image of God
                                • Job 10:8-10: Your hands have shaped me and made me, but now you destroy me completely. Remember that you have made me as with the clay; will you return me to dust? Did you not pour me out like milk, and curdle me like cheese?
                                • Job 33:4-6: The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Reply to me, if you can; set your arguments in order before me and take your stand! Look, I am just like you in relation to God; I too have been molded from clay.
                                • Psalm 103:14: For he knows what we are made of; he realizes we are made of clay.
                                • Ecclesiastes 3:19-20: For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same: As one dies, so dies the other; both have the same breath. There is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting. Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and to dust both return.
                                • Isa. 64:8: Yet, LORD, you are our father. We are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the product of your labor. [cf. Isa. 43:7]
                                • 1 Cor. 15:47-49: The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven. [cf. Eph 4:24]


                                Like Job or David or anyone else, Adam was a clay vessel formed by the hands of the Potter himself, made from the dust in the image of God. So if we are all made from dust/clay, shaped by God and given the breath of the Almighty then this might suggest a literal reading of Adam being made this way might not be the way to go.

                                AFAICT we all are the result of having been given birth to by our mothers (not including "test tube babies" who still come from their genetic material). Yet various passages describe us, like Adam, of having been constructed or shaped out of dust/clay. But being we were created by being born from our parents and not literally constructed out of dust/clay this might suggest that the same may have been true for Adam.
                                Zombie Thread.jpg




                                As for Eve...

                                The creation account found in Genesis 2, which includes Eve's creation from Adam's rib, describes a corporeal, physical deity with hands to work the dust/clay and a literal pair of lungs, mouth and nose to blow in the breath of life. To me that is an anthropomorphic expression much like Exodus 7:5 when it says:

                                Scripture Verse:

                                The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                I don't think of God actually stretching out a material, physical hand. Similarly in Psalm 57:1 when David spoke of being in the shadow of God's wings this does not mean that God is some sort of winged creature.

                                The purpose of such anthropomorphic language is to describe God in terms that are more understandable to humans not that God has a bodily form.

                                Now I'm not saying that it couldn't be done this way (after all God is God), but rather in instances where anthropomorphic language is employed we should proceed with caution about taking that text literally.

                                Finally, in Nick Peters (Apologiaphoenix) review of John Walton's book "The Lost World of Adam and Eve":

                                Source: Book Plunge: The Lost World of Adam and Eve


                                Eve in the account meanwhile is made to be an ontological equal. She is not really made from the rib of Adam but from the side. Walton says the language is used of a deep sleep for a trance like purpose. We should not read modern anesthesia into the account. The Israelites were not scientists and God could have just as easily made Adam impervious to any pain. Instead, what it is is that Adam is having a vision of himself being cut in half by God and from that half Eve being made. Thus, quite literally, when Eve shows up, Adam can happily proclaim that hes found his better half. (To which, I have consulted a number of Hebrew scholars who tell me that the bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh that Adam said when he saw Eve is more appropriately translated as YOWZA!)


                                Source

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X