Is The Bible Literally True?

[JonathanL]

The Virgin Birth also answers the reverse of the curse. Jesus was not literally born of Jeconiah seed. Since Jesus was born of a women (Galatians 4:4; Isaiah 7:14), and without sin (2nd Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1st Peter 2:22; 1st John 3:5). The curse does not effect him.

Of course, if what I wrote in post #273 in the Innerancy thread is correct it doesn't even matter since the period of the curse was either limited to Jeconiah's own lifetime and/or the immediate future after his death, or God rescinded the curse for some reason (According to rabbinical tradition that reason would be that Jeconiah repented of his sins in prison).

[tabibito]

Of course, if what I wrote in post #273 in the Innerancy thread is correct it doesn't even matter since the period of the curse was either limited to Jeconiah's own lifetime and/or the immediate future after his death, or God rescinded the curse for some reason (According to rabbinical tradition that reason would be that Jeconiah repented of his sins in prison).

That too.

[JonathanL]

Thanks for sharing such valuable information. How is Mary traced to David?

That would be through the genealogy in Luke.

Source: Response to...The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah"; Glenn Miller

Joseph is already a legal heir of David, but he seems also to 'pick up' Mary's legal heritage, too. How?

Probably through the laws of inheritance, dealing with sonless families.

The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.
One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:


"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, Mary and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"


[The main passages in the OT that refer to these various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10. These practices were widespread in the Ancient Near East, and a good discussion of the details in Israel and differences from the ANE can be found in Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Vol 1--Social Institutions. Notice that--even though there might be cases of levirate marriages in the pre-Joseph geneaologies (as is often argued in the Jeconiah issue)-- this specifically is NOT the case of levirate marriage, which involves brothers. Mary is not a widow.] This is was apparently common in the OT/Tanaach and in other ANE nations, and the first mention in the Bible is the case of Zelophehad's daughters. This case is mentioned several times in the Hebrew Bible, as deal the issue of inheritance in cases of sonless marriages. The daughters inherited the estate:


"In this situation, therefore, the decision is made and laws are enacted giving daughters the right to inherit in the absence of any male heirs, as well as establishing a law of procedure in cases of inheritance. Some precedent seems to exist for this in Mesopotamian legal documents (Sumerian text Gudea statute B [c. 2150 b.c.]; Alalakh [eighteenth century b.c.]; Nuzi; and Emar). Matthews, V. h., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Nu 27:11). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.


But it doesn't stop here. We have cases where the men who married these daughters became 'heirs' of the father, even taking his name:


Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. And Sheshan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. 35 And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant in marriage, and she bore him Attai. 36 And Attai became the father of Nathan, and Nathan became the father of Zabad, 37 and Zabad became the father of Ephlal, and Ephlal became the father of Obed, 38 and Obed became the father of Jehu, and Jehu became the father of Azariah, 39 and Azariah became the father of Helez, and Helez became the father of Eleasah, 40 and Eleasah became the father of Sismai, and Sismai became the father of Shallum, 41 and Shallum became the father of Jekamiah, and Jekamiah became the father of Elishama. New American Standard Bible .(1 Ch 2:34).


And of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of aBarzillai, who took a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and he was called by their name." New American Standard Bible . (Ezr 2:61).


Comments on these:

"Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his slave as a wife: Because Sheshan lacked male heirs, he might have instituted a procedure like that followed in the case of the five daughters of Zelophehad (Num 27:1–11*; Josh 17:3–6*). These women, who had no brothers, successfully requested permission from Moses to inherit the property of their father, who had died, in order to preserve his name. In a subsequent ruling, it was decided that the daughters of Zelophehad must marry within their tribe lest their inheritance pass to the other tribe into which they had married (Num 36:1–12*). Judging by the precedent of the daughters of Zelophehad, Sheshan’s name and property would have passed to his son-in-law. Klein, R. W., & Krüger, T. (2006). 1 Chronicles : A commentary. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (101). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

"The sons of Barzillai were the descendants of a priest who had married a daughter, probably an heiress (Num. 36), of 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. That by contracting this marriage he had not renounced for himself and his descendants his priestly privileges, is evident from the fact, that when his posterity returned from captivity, they laid claim to these privileges." [K&D, in loc]


There is also a case in the Levitical line, although the principle is not stated explicitly:

"Mahli had two sons, Eleazar and Kish; the first of whom, however, left behind him at his death only daughters, who were married to the sons of Kish (i.e., their cousins), according to the law as to daughters who were heiresses (Num. 26:6–9). Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament. (3:545-546). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

"According to the later law, where there were no sons, daughters inherited, and with the express purpose of preventing a man’s name from being lost to his family (Nu. 27:4), but such daughters must marry only into the family of the tribe of their father (Nu. 36:6). In v. 22 it is stated that these conditions were fulfilled in the case of Eleazar and doubtless the verse was added to show why Eleazar was also counted among the fathers’ houses though he was known to have had no sons.— Curtis, E. L., & Madsen, A. A. (1910). A critical and exegetical commentary on the books of Chronicles. Series title in part also at head of t.-p. (265). New York: C. Scribner's Sons.


So, this inheritance-by-marriage principle is well-established from the Hebrew Bible.
What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, that the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal and kinship standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. .


So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J).

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html

And for fairly short discussion between me and tabibito on this issue, see the thread You Say You Want An Evolution!, starting from page 16, or so: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...lution!/page16

[JonathanL]

Coniah was one of the ancestors of Jesus according to Matthew 1:11. And God said in Jer. 22:30 that this Coniah will not sit on the throne of David. So once Jesus sits on the throne of David, the words of God in Jer. 22:30 will be conflicted.

Matthew 1:11 New King James Version (NKJV)
11 Josiah begot [a]Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

Footnotes:
Matthew 1:11 Or Coniah or Jehoiachin

Jeremiah 22:30 New King James Version (NKJV)
30 Thus says the Lord:
‘Write this man down as childless,
A man who shall not prosper in his days;
For none of his descendants shall prosper,
Sitting on the throne of David,
And ruling anymore in Judah.’ ”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...0&version=NKJV

I already answered this in the following post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post639617

[tabibito]

As I recall, the prophecy said that the Messiah would be from (ek) a descendant of David - which might prove significant. If of course, I recall correctly.

[Same Hakeem]

Of course, if what I wrote in post #273 in the Innerancy thread is correct it doesn't even matter since the period of the curse was either limited to Jeconiah's own lifetime and/or the immediate future after his death, or God rescinded the curse for some reason (According to rabbinical tradition that reason would be that Jeconiah repented of his sins in prison).

Your statement, "the period of the curse was either limited to Jeconiah's own lifetime" is true because Jer. 22:30 says "he shall not proper in his days" but the same Jer. 22:30 goes on to say "none of his descendants will be sitting on the throne of David and ruling in Judah"

[Same Hakeem]

[QUOTE=Chrawnus;639908]That would be through the genealogy in Luke.

However, Luke 3:31 mentions Nathan (not Solomon) as a descendant of David and not through Solomon. Solomon (not Nathan) was the selected son for the Davidic line as per I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18, 1 Chronicles 29:1, 1 Chronicles 28:5 and 1 Chronicles. 29:24.

1 Chronicles 22:10 New King James Version (NKJV)
10 He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’


2 Chronicles 7:18 New King James Version (NKJV)
18 then I will establish the throne of your kingdom, as I covenanted with David your father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man as ruler in Israel.’

1 Chronicles 29:1 New King James Version (NKJV)
Offerings for Building the Temple
29 Furthermore King David said to all the assembly: “My son Solomon, whom alone God has chosen, is young and inexperienced; and the work is great, because the [a]temple is not for man but for the Lord God.

1 Chronicles 28:5 New King James Version (NKJV)
5 And of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons) He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.

1 Chronicles 29:24 New King James Version (NKJV)
24 All the leaders and the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David, submitted[a] themselves to King Solomon.

[JonathanL]

Your statement, "the period of the curse was either limited to Jeconiah's own lifetime" is true because Jer. 22:30 says "he shall not proper in his days" but the same Jer. 22:30 goes on to say "none of his descendants will be sitting on the throne of David and ruling in Judah"

Here's the full text of the verse:

Scripture Verse: Jer 22:30 ESV

Thus says the Lord:
“Write this man down as childless,
a man who shall not succeed in his days,
for none of his offspring shall succeed
in sitting on the throne of David
and ruling again in Judah.”

© Copyright Original Source

And the NET version:

Scripture Verse: Jer 22:30 NET

The Lord says,

“Enroll this man in the register as though he were childless.

Enroll him as a man who will not enjoy success during his lifetime.

For none of his sons will succeed in occupying the throne of David

or ever succeed in ruling over Judah.”

© Copyright Original Source

As you can see, the word that is translated as descendants in the translation you're using can also be translated as sons, or offspring. So it's possible to read the verse to say that Jeconiah wouldn't "succeed" during his lifetime, because none of his sons/offspring would succeed him as king of Judah. In other words, the phrase "in his days" gives context to the word translated as descendants/sons/offspring so that the "descendants" that is spoken about here is limited to his immediate offspring.

[JonathanL]

[QUOTE=Same Hakeem;640030]

That would be through the genealogy in Luke.

However, Luke 3:31 mentions Nathan (not Solomon) as a descendant of David and not through Solomon. Solomon (not Nathan) was the selected son for the Davidic line as per I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18, 1 Chronicles 29:1, 1 Chronicles 28:5 and 1 Chronicles. 29:24.

1 Chronicles 22:10 New King James Version (NKJV)
10 He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’


2 Chronicles 7:18 New King James Version (NKJV)
18 then I will establish the throne of your kingdom, as I covenanted with David your father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man as ruler in Israel.’

1 Chronicles 29:1 New King James Version (NKJV)
Offerings for Building the Temple
29 Furthermore King David said to all the assembly: “My son Solomon, whom alone God has chosen, is young and inexperienced; and the work is great, because the [a]temple is not for man but for the Lord God.

1 Chronicles 28:5 New King James Version (NKJV)
5 And of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons) He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.

1 Chronicles 29:24 New King James Version (NKJV)
24 All the leaders and the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David, submitted[a] themselves to King Solomon.

This was answered in the portion of the article that I cited in the post you're replying to:

Source: Response to...The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah"; Glenn Miller

So, this inheritance-by-marriage principle is well-established from the Hebrew Bible.
What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, that the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal and kinship standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. .


So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J).

© Copyright Original Source

http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html

In other words, when Joseph married Mary he also adopted Jesus as his son, and therefore Jesus became the legal heir of Joseph, and became part of the royal heir line.

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=Chrawnus;640083]

This was answered in the portion of the article that I cited in the post you're replying to:

Source: Response to...The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah"; Glenn Miller

So, this inheritance-by-marriage principle is well-established from the Hebrew Bible.
What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, that the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal and kinship standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. .


So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J).

© Copyright Original Source

http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html

In other words, when Joseph married Mary he also adopted Jesus as his son, and therefore Jesus became the legal heir of Joseph, and became part of the royal heir line.

For the most part I would agree. But "he got his genes from Mary" seems unlikely.

[JonathanL]

For the most part I would agree. But "he got his genes from Mary" seems unlikely.

I think it would be literally impossible for Jesus to have gotten his genes from anyone other than Mary...

[tabibito]

I think it would be literally impossible for Jesus to have gotten his genes from anyone other than Mary...

The result would be a hybrid, but the records show that He himself became human.

[JonathanL]

The result would be a hybrid, but the records show that He himself became human.

The records show that Mary became pregnant with Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure why Mary would need to go through what would essentially be an unnecessary farce if He could have just made Himself a human body and soul out of thin air. Surely Mary becoming pregnant implies quite heavily that she was the actual biological mother of Jesus (and thus passed on her genes to Him), rather than just a convenient incubator.

[Same Hakeem]

[QUOTE=Chrawnus;640083]

This was answered in the portion of the article that I cited in the post you're replying to:

Source: Response to...The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah"; Glenn Miller

So, this inheritance-by-marriage principle is well-established from the Hebrew Bible.
What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, that the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal and kinship standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. .


So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J).

© Copyright Original Source

http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html

In other words, when Joseph married Mary he also adopted Jesus as his son, and therefore Jesus became the legal heir of Joseph, and became part of the royal heir line.

You did not address how Mary in Luke could be from David through Nathan (not Solomon) as per Luke 3:31 while Old Testament verses I quoted show that Solomon was chosen to be the selected son for the Davidic line.

The bigger contradiction is that Jesus could not be traced through Joseph as claimed by Matthew 1:16 because Jesus had no biological father and hence Jesus could not be his father.

[tabibito]

The records show that Mary became pregnant with Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure why Mary would need to go through what would essentially be an unnecessary farce if He could have just made Himself a human body and soul out of thin air. Surely Mary becoming pregnant implies quite heavily that she was the actual biological mother of Jesus (and thus passed on her genes to Him), rather than just a convenient incubator.

God assessed necessities ...
The necessity was for Jesus of Nazareth to be a man like any other, partaking fully of human identity, indistinguishable from any of his brothers. He did not regard equality with God as booty, but emptied himself to take on the form of a servant ... the list continues. It would seem that becoming human made development from a baby and child at least desirable. Not to mention that prophecy did say he would be born.