Genealogies

[Scotishfury09]

I was looking over the lineages of Christ in Luke 3 and Matthew 1. What I found as interesting is that the line is exactly the same from Abraham to David with a few exceptions.

In Matthew the line goes as follows:
Abraham - Isaac - Jacob - Judah - Perez - Hezron - Ram - Amminadab - Nahshon - Salmon - Boaz - Obed - Jesse - David

Luke:
Abraham - Isaac - Jacob - Judah - Perez - Hezron - Arni - Admin - Amminadab - Nahshon - Salmon - Boaz - Obed - Jesse - David

Notice in Matthew Hezron is the father of Ram, the father of Amminadab, but in Luke Hezron is the father of Arni, the father of Admin, the father of Amminadab.

This is a strong case that lineages were not father to son and probably shouldn't be interpreted that way for a literal 6000 year old Earth.

One other thing in the lineages. The lines split at David, one going through Solomon and one going through Nathan. They both go through Zerubbabel and Shealtiel but don't use a single other overlapping name. Strange, no?

 

[laptoppop]

Right. The common explanation is that one of the lines is the physical line (Mary), and the other is the legal line (Joseph). Together they show Jesus totally fulfilled the genetic and legal requirements for messiah.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I fear that we're not communicating the same thing. Probably my fault. My point to the whole post and thread is that in one line it takes 3 generations from Hezron to Amminidab and the other it takes 4 and they don't even use the same names. This shows that we can't take every "son" to a literal father to son relationship. They could just be ancestors. I don't think a 6000 year old Earth is reasonable considering it was based on genealogies that might or might not be father to son. This isn't arguing young earth vs. a much much much older earth, it's an argument that 4004 B.C. is an incredibly arbitrary number and I think this proves it.

 

[laptoppop]

Yes, 4004 B.C. is arbitrary. It was calculated more from the OT geneaologies than the NT. Those include details like how old someone was when so and so was born, but yes, often the terms can mean ancestor, not direct - so we can estimate, but not be exact.

 

[theFijian]

I'm reminded of the blind man whom Jesus healed. Why did he call out "Son of David, have mercy on me!" and not "Son of Jesse, have mercy on me!"

 

[vossler]

I fear that we're not communicating the same thing. Probably my fault. My point to the whole post and thread is that in one line it takes 3 generations from Hezron to Amminidab and the other it takes 4 and they don't even use the same names. This shows that we can't take every "son" to a literal father to son relationship. They could just be ancestors. I don't think a 6000 year old Earth is reasonable considering it was based on genealogies that might or might not be father to son. This isn't arguing young earth vs. a much much much older earth, it's an argument that 4004 B.C. is an incredibly arbitrary number and I think this proves it.

The 6,000 year earth is very reasonable and not nearly as arbitrary as one might think. Once you understand the dynamics behind the lineages of both Matthew and Luke, you will find it's one of the most fascinating studies and rewarding studies you'll ever come across.

I'm reminded of the blind man whom Jesus healed. Why did he call out "Son of David, have mercy on me!" and not "Son of Jesse, have mercy on me!"

"Son of" in Hebrew didn't necessarily mean what we today think it means. They didn't have a term or way of describing great, great, great grandparent, son of was all inclusive and could have had some missing generations excluded, I don't suspect many. That's why I'm not too firm on the earth being 6,000 years old and allow for some additional time.

 

[busterdog]

"Son of" in Hebrew didn't necessarily mean what we today think it means. They didn't have a term or way of describing great, great, great grandparent, son of was all inclusive and could have had some missing generations excluded, I don't suspect many. That's why I'm not too firm on the earth being 6,000 years old and allow for some additional time.

Perhaps you know that answer then on the question of whether the geneologies in the Gospels correction count generations. One explanation I came accross was that jeconiah's name was blotted out.

I would ask anyone genuinely interested in understanding the Bible to take a look at Matthew chapter 1. Matthew 1:17 says that "all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations" (RSV). The plain meaning seems beyond dispute: these are all the generations in question, and in each group there are fourteen. This is the plain meaning, and it is clearly false. On the one hand, one only has to count them in order to see that there are in fact two groups of 14 and one group of 13. On the other hand, one only has to look at the genealogies in Kings and Chronicles to see that in order to get 14 in one of the groupings he had to leave out some generations.

If Mortenson is correct that the Bible should be read as providing factual data when this is the plain meaning to a modern reader, then the Bible is false, unless one wishes to propose a special "Biblical mathematics" in which 14 sometimes means 13, as well as a special Biblical linguistics in which "all" sometimes means "some". There is, however, another solution. My own view is that the desire for historical, factual information, and the assumption that this is what will be provided because it is mose important, are modern perspectives these authors did not share. The number 14 is the numerical value of the name David in Hebrew, and that seems to me to explain why the author went to such lengths to emphasize this number - even to the length of making the text numerically and genealogically inaccurate! The point is about symbolism, and not history, nor is it about math. But the latter, to a modern reader, seems to be the plain meaning of the text.
/

 

[vossler]

Perhaps you know that answer then on the question of whether the geneologies in the Gospels correction count generations. One explanation I came accross was that jeconiah's name was blotted out.

Yes, you're exactly right, it is because Jeconiah's name was blotted out. Unfortunately I don't have all the specifics here at work but I can post them later if someone wishes to know more. Here's a brief explanation.



Jeconiah was blotted out of Matthew's account because Jeremiah 22:30 states this about him:

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."​

Deuteronomy 9:14 further backs this up by:

"Let me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven."​

The basic theme is that Matthew's geneology showed us the royal line while Luke's gave us the blood line. Both line's from Abraham through David are the same. It is because of Jeconiah's problems that they separate at David.



BTW, if you noticed in Luke's account it states:

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph.​

This shows us that Jesus wasn't of the blood line of Joseph, only the royal line.

I hope this helps, it's the best I can do from memory.

 

[busterdog]

Vossler, thanks.

The funny thing about the geneology is the use of the term "blotted out" regarding jeconiah. Strange phrase. Almost like it was designed to test Christians who want to rush to judgment on the accuracy of the Bible.

I will have to go back in and count again.

As for Fury's OP, I don't really see the argument as going real far. The OT use of the word begat is not something used of mere descent.

Pop's agreement is also unclear to me. We may not have an exact age for the earth based upon the geneology, but I think Fury is suggesting that the geneology could be referring to several million years, not 4,000 or so. Did I miss something?

1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail
a) (Qal)
1) to bear, bring forth
a) of child birth
b) of distress (simile)
c) of wicked (behaviour)
2) to beget
b) (Niphal) to be born
c) (Piel)
1) to cause or help to bring forth
2) to assist or tend as a midwife
3) midwife (participle)
d) (Pual) to be born
e) (Hiphil)
1) to beget (a child)
2) to bear (fig. - of wicked bringing forth iniquity)
f) (Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)
g) (Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree)

 

[Assyrian]

Vossler, thanks.

The funny thing about the geneology is the use of the term "blotted out" regarding jeconiah. Strange phrase. Almost like it was designed to test Christians who want to rush to judgment on the accuracy of the Bible.

Really amazing leap of unjustifiable reasoning here busterdog. It doesn't answer the question raised in the OP about Amminadab, no one even mentioned Jeconiah. It doesn't explain why Jeconiah's name is missing from the genealogy because, wait for it, Jeconiah is listed in the Genealogy. Although strangely his father Jehoiakim is missing.

And the only suggestion of an answer it gives is that genealogies are not actual literal history but express a spiritual lesson intended by the author. Now that is really socking it to the TEs isn't it?

And from the you conclude it is 'Almost like it was designed to test Christians...'

I will have to go back in and count again.

It might be worth comparing it with 1Chron 3.

Matt 1:7 .... 1Chron 3:10
Solomon ..... The son of Solomon was
Rehoboam .... Rehoboam,
Abijah ...... Abijah his son,
Asa ......... Asa his son,
8 Jehoshaphat Jehoshaphat his son,
Joram .. .... 11 Joram his son,
............. Ahaziah his son,
............. Joash his son,
............. 12 Amaziah his son,
Uzziah ...... Azariah his son,
9 Jotham .... Jotham his son,
Ahaz......... 13 Ahaz his son,
Hezekiah .... Hezekiah his son,
10 Manasseh ..Manasseh his son,
Amon......... 14 Amon his son,
Josiah....... Josiah his son. 15 The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, the second
..............Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 16 The descendants of Jehoiakim:
11 Jeconiah ..Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son; 17 and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive:
12 Shealtiel..Shealtiel his son, 18 Malchiram,
..............Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah; 19 and the sons of Pedaiah:
Zerubbabel... Zerubbabel and Shimei;

 

[busterdog]

Really amazing leap of unjustifiable reasoning here busterdog. It doesn't answer the question raised in the OP about Amminadab, no one even mentioned Jeconiah. It doesn't explain why Jeconiah's name is missing from the genealogy because, wait for it, Jeconiah is listed in the Genealogy. Although strangely his father Jehoiakim is missing.

And the only suggestion of an answer it gives is that genealogies are not actual literal history but express a spiritual lesson intended by the author. Now that is really socking it to the TEs isn't it?

And from the you conclude it is 'Almost like it was designed to test Christians...'

It might be worth comparing it with 1Chron 3.

Matt 1:7 .... 1Chron 3:10
Solomon ..... The son of Solomon was
Rehoboam .... Rehoboam,
Abijah ...... Abijah his son,
Asa ......... Asa his son,
8 Jehoshaphat Jehoshaphat his son,
Joram .. .... 11 Joram his son,
............. Ahaziah his son,
............. Joash his son,
............. 12 Amaziah his son,
Uzziah ...... Azariah his son,
9 Jotham .... Jotham his son,
Ahaz......... 13 Ahaz his son,
Hezekiah .... Hezekiah his son,
10 Manasseh ..Manasseh his son,
Amon......... 14 Amon his son,
Josiah....... Josiah his son. 15 The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, the second
..............Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 16 The descendants of Jehoiakim:
11 Jeconiah ..Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son; 17 and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive:
12 Shealtiel..Shealtiel his son, 18 Malchiram,
..............Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah; 19 and the sons of Pedaiah:
Zerubbabel... Zerubbabel and Shimei;

Test Christians, not prove them. Abraham tested poorly for a while, but ended rather well.

I don't think I really understand the whole thing. I was hoping Vossler would make it easy for me.

Without exception, all these so called problems have evaporated with time and an inerrant analysis. I take this one on faith for the time being.

 

[Assyrian]

It seem to me there might be a salutary lesson for YECs here. Their whole argument about the Genesis days being literal boils down to 'the obvious intent of the author' counting out the day with evening and morning, what else could it mean but six literal days? Then we get Matthew, not only listing out all the generations, but counting each set of 14 generations. What else could he mean only 3x14 literal father-son generations? Strange. Almost like it was designed to test literal interpretations...