The Flood

Rex Lex · Feb 15, 2011

theFijian said:
My position? I don't believe I have even stated my position, how then can you know what it is? Unless you happen to be placing yourself on a par with God. Perhaps as I've already suggested you should try being a little bit more humble and at least ask for someone's opinion before telling them they are in error

Oh, I see. Perhaps I got the wrong poster. Hmm, but if you have not stated your position then what are you doing here?

So feel free to nit-pick at someone else, my non-committed counterpart.

Assyrian · Feb 15, 2011

Rex Lex said:
Then you need to read this:

Cooper did the rare thing of visiting the libraries of many nations, especially Europe and got first hand evidence of the family lineages of the nobles, kings, and queens, some of whose family trees can be traced clear back to the time of Noah...There is clear-cut evidence of the Noahic deluge from the archeology of China.

You would have to get past the problem that the royal genealogies would have been written down by pious monks happy to extend the genealogy that bit further back, or interpret an ancient Celtic or Germanic name as something he recognised from a Latin genealogy. I prefer papias's argument (I was wondering about that papias.)

<<Staff Edit>>

FreeinChrist · Feb 15, 2011

MOD HAT

Folks, you need to knock it off with the digs and insults now.

Rex Lex · Feb 15, 2011

Assyrian said:
You would have to get past the problem that the royal genealogies would have been written down by pious monks happy to extend the genealogy that bit further back, or interpret an ancient Celtic or Germanic name as something he recognised from a Latin genealogy. I prefer papias's argument (I was wondering about that papias.)

I prefer Jesus statement: "The scripture cannot be broken". His family lineage in Luke was confirmed by both Moses and by the Chronicler. That family lineage gives Him the right to be heir to the throne of David and if you question it then you question His right to sit on that throne.

<<Staff Edit>>

yeshuasavedme · Feb 15, 2011

Originally Posted by Rex Lex

Then you need to read this:

Cooper did the rare thing of visiting the libraries of many nations, especially Europe and got first hand evidence of the family lineages of the nobles, kings, and queens, some of whose family trees can be traced clear back to the time of Noah...There is clear-cut evidence of the Noahic deluge from the archeology of China.

Assyrian said:
You would have to get past the problem that the royal genealogies would have been written down by pious monks happy to extend the genealogy that bit further back, or interpret an ancient Celtic or Germanic name as something he recognised from a Latin genealogy. I prefer papias's argument (I was wondering about that papias.)

Actually, Cooper studied the written chronicles of the rulers in their native areas and the records in public archives, not only in Churches, to complete his work. It took him thirty years.

You can read it for free here http- ://ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html

Look at this table of Japheth's descendants, and note "Latinus", before 1104, BC, then correlate that with the record of the same Latinus, in the Book of Jasher, and check the timelines out from the information given in that book.
Book of Jasher 74

The Genealogy of the early British Kings

Rex Lex · Feb 16, 2011

yeshuasavedme said:
Originally Posted by Rex Lex

Then you need to read this:

Cooper did the rare thing of visiting the libraries of many nations, especially Europe and got first hand evidence of the family lineages of the nobles, kings, and queens, some of whose family trees can be traced clear back to the time of Noah...There is clear-cut evidence of the Noahic deluge from the archeology of China.

Actually, Cooper studied the written chronicles of the rulers in their native areas and the records in public archives, not only in Churches, to complete his work. It took him thirty years.

You can read it for free here http- ://ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html

Look at this table of Japheth's descendants, and note "Latinus", before 1104, BC, then correlate that with the record of the same Latinus, in the Book of Jasher, and check the timelines out from the information given in that book.
Book of Jasher 74

The Genealogy of the early British Kings

Excellent. Thank you for that. But in reality, I think as it concerns the T.E.'s we've been communicating with here it is time to adhere to your final statement at the end of each of your posts. No matter how strong the evidence against their position is, they maintain the error.

Best wishes to you.

theFijian · Feb 16, 2011

yeshuasavedme said:
Look at this table of Japheth's descendants, and note "Latinus", before 1104, BC, then correlate that with the record of the same Latinus, in the Book of Jasher, and check the timelines out from the information given in that book.
Book of Jasher 74

Since when was the Book of Jasher part of the inspired word of God?

theFijian · Feb 16, 2011

Rex Lex said:
Oh, I see. Perhaps I got the wrong poster. Hmm, but if you have not stated your position then what are you doing here?

So feel free to nit-pick at someone else, my non-committed counterpart.

A thousand apologies! I didn't realise someone had made you the moderator and anyone wishing to post here had to fulfil a set of criteria drawn up by you before they could participate.

I'm more than happy to give my position when the enquirer conducts themself in a gracious manner and with a genuine desire to learn

Mr Dave · Feb 16, 2011

Mod-Hat On

Several posts have been edited. If yours has been edited and you have questions feel free to PM me.

Please all review the site rules, in particular

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
● Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them.
● Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

Mod-Hat Off

Assyrian · Feb 16, 2011

yeshuasavedme said:
Originally Posted by Rex Lex

Then you need to read this:

Cooper did the rare thing of visiting the libraries of many nations, especially Europe and got first hand evidence of the family lineages of the nobles, kings, and queens, some of whose family trees can be traced clear back to the time of Noah...There is clear-cut evidence of the Noahic deluge from the archeology of China.

Actually, Cooper studied the written chronicles of the rulers in their native areas and the records in public archives, not only in Churches, to complete his work. It took him thirty years.

You can read it for free here http- ://ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html

Look at this table of Japheth's descendants, and note "Latinus", before 1104, BC, then correlate that with the record of the same Latinus, in the Book of Jasher, and check the timelines out from the information given in that book.
Book of Jasher 74

The Genealogy of the early British Kings

The question is, who compiled these chronicles? The pre-Christian cultures passed their histories on orally and it wasn't until Christianity came along that there were written down, frequently by Celtic Monks. You have a number of problems, oral traditions are not that accurate and are subject to embellishment, what petty tribal chief would not like his bard tracing his lineage back to ancient Rome or Greece (and yes they did know about them). Then you have the Celtic monks adding their own pious embellishments. Growing up in Ireland your learn the ancient celtic legends. All good old fashioned Irish paganism. The cycle of Fionn and the Fianna the warrior band who protected Ireland from invasion, but the cycle ends up with one of them traveling off to live in Faerie land (Tír na nÓg) when he wanted to return 500 year later he is warned not to step down off his horse, which of course he does and immediately turn into an old man... who meets St Patrick and is baptised. Then you have the Children of Lir cursed by a wicked stepmother and turned into swans, and so they lived for 900 years, until they met an Irish monk who turned them back to humans and baptised them before they died. And even older cycle is the story of Cú Chulain and the war between Connacht and Ulster (yes they were at it back then). Again a good old fashioned pagan romp with goddesses and warriors cursed with period pains until we get to the end and the death of the king of Ulster.

Death of King Conor MacNessa
From An Illustrated History of Ireland by Margaret Anne Cusack

It was usual in those barbarous times, whenever a distinguished enemy was killed in battle, to cleave open his head, and to make a ball of the brains by mixing them with lime, which was then dried, and preserved as a trophy of the warrior's valour. Some of these balls were preserved in the royal palace at Emania. One, that was specially prized, passed accidentally into the hands of a famous Connaught champion, who found a treacherous opportunity of throwing it at Conor, while he was displaying himself, according to the custom of the times, to the ladies of an opposing army, who had followed their lords to the scene of action. The ball lodged in the king's skull, and his physicians declared that an attempt to extract it would prove fatal. Conor was carried home; he soon recovered, but he was strictly forbidden to use any violent exercise, and required to avoid all excitement or anger. The king enjoyed his usual health by observing those directions, until the very day of the Crucifixion. But the fearful phenomena which then occurred diverted his attention, and he inquired if Bacrach, his druid, could divine the cause.

The druid consulted his oracles, and informed the king that Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, was, even at that moment, suffering death at the hands of the Jews. "What crime has He committed?" said Conor. "None," replied the druid. "Then are they slaying Him innocently?" said Conor. "They are," replied the druid.

It was too great a sorrow for the noble prince; he could not bear that his God should die unmourned; and rushing wildly from where he sat to a neighbouring forest, he began to hew the young trees down, exclaiming: "Thus would I destroy those who were around my King at putting Him to death." The excitement proved fatal; and the brave and good King Conor Mac Nessa died [9] avenging, in his own wild pagan fashion, the death of his Creator.

Yeah, right. I am really grateful to those Celtic monks for recording all the those ancient legends, but they just had to go and stick that bit about the crucifixion in. The problem is, this is the sort of source you are relying on to trace the lineage of ancient kings back to Noah.

Assyrian · Feb 16, 2011

Rex Lex said:
I prefer Jesus statement: "The scripture cannot be broken". His family lineage in Luke was confirmed by both Moses and by the Chronicler. That family lineage gives Him the right to be heir to the throne of David and if you question it then you question His right to sit on that throne.

And I really like Jesus statement to the literalist Sadducees Matt 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. A lesson for us all there Where does Jesus say everyone was descended from Noah or that the flood covered the whole globe? Not sure how Luke helps you, he describes the genealogy as 'supposed'. That doesn't sound like someone trying to establish Jesus' claim to the throne of David, nor is is likely the Gentile Luke would be writing the Roman official Theophilus and trying to convince him of Jesus claim to Herod's throne. Of course the NT does teach that Jesus was the son of David, but not in the genealogy in Luke.

The Chronicler is similarly reticent about the names in the early chapter of Genesis, simply listing the names without any comment or interpretation.
1Chron 1:1 Adam, Seth, Enosh;
2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared;
3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech;
4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
It isn't until after the flood we read who people's sons were or who begat whom and we start getting biographical details. But neither Luke nor the Chronicler tell us the flood was global and wiped out the entire human race apart form Noah's family.

Papias · Feb 16, 2011

Rex Lex wrote:

prefer Jesus statement: "The scripture cannot be broken". His family lineage in Luke was confirmed by both Moses and by the Chronicler.

Rex Lex, do you realize that reading them shows that the geneologies are figurative? They can't be literal because if taken literally, Lk contradicts Mt, who contradicts 1 Cr.

Mt and 1 Cr both give the descendants from Solomon leading toward Jesus. But Mt has apparently cut out several people to make his 14, 14, 14 theological point work. Here they are, side by side:

Mt Gen# ...................Gospel of Matthew has ......................................1st Chron. Has:
1 ..................................7Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .........................10 Solomon's son was
2 .....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah, ..............................Rehoboam,
3 ........................................Abijah.............................................................. Abijah his son,
4 ..........................................8Asa................................................................. Asa his son,
5 .......................................Jehoshaphat .....................................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6 ............................................Jehoram.......................................................... Jehoram his son
............................................Skipped....................................................................................... Ahaziah his son,

..............................................Skipped ....................................................................................Joash his son,
..............................................Skipped ......................................................................................12 Amaziah his son,
7 .................................9Uzziah the father of Jotham, .......................Azariah his son,
8........................................... Jotham .......................................................Jotham his son,
9 ........................................Ahaz ..........................................................13 Ahaz his son,
10 ..................................10Hezekiah .......................................................Hezekiah his son,
11 .....................................Manasseh ..........................................................Manasseh his son,
12 ...........................................Amon........................................................... 14 Amon his son,
13................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah,.................................... Josiah his son.

Do you agree that Mt cut out these people to make his 14 thing work? That shows it is a figurative geneology, not a literal one. Scripture indeed cannot be broken, that's why the text itself pushes for a figurative interpretation.

That family lineage gives Him the right to be heir to the throne of David and if you question it then you question His right to sit on that throne.

That sounds an awful lot like saying that if I don't agree with your literal interpretation, then you question my status as a Christian. Of course Jesus has a right to sit on the throne, even if there are figurative parts, including his geneology, in one's chosen Bible.

Papias

shernren · Feb 16, 2011

Wooo, did I miss the party?

I just want to point out a little belatedly that the word used in Genesis 7:22 for "dry land" (H2724, charabah) is not the same word used in Genesis 1:9-10 for "dry land" (H3004, yabbashah).

charabah goes on to be used to describe both little patches of dry land:

Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. (Exod 14:21, ESV)

and global pieces of dry land:

For thus says the Lord of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. (Hag 2:6, ESV)

=========

The word used in Luke 2:1 is oikoumene, an interesting one because it brings the idea of stewardship - so that naturally it was mentioned in the context of a census. Note again that this is not the same word used in 2 Peter 3:5-7! In fact, 2 Peter 3:5-7 uses two distinct words for world:

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth (ge) was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world (kosmos) that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth (ge) that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (2Pet 3:5-7, ESV)

I believe this is not accidental. Earth is the physical object, the lump of rock spinning in space on which all of us live. Ge is of course the Greek root word which gives us geology. So how did kosmos become cosmology? That is because kosmos carries along with it the idea of order. Kosmos is not just the world, but the world specifically insofar as it is ordered by the actions of human creativity imitating the Creator God by virtue of our possessing the image of God. This is clear, for example, in John 3:16:

For God so loved the world (kosmos), that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16, ESV)

Of course the Scriptures don't mean that God gave His only Son for a clod of rock in outer space; rather He gave His Son for all the people who live in that rock. The distinction is also clear here:

Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world (oikoumene), to try those who dwell on the earth (ge). (Rev 3:10, ESV)

The "world" is all people who live on the earth; the "earth" is just the particular clod of rock on which they dwell.

=========

So is it possible to interpret the Scriptures literally, and believe in a local flood? Surely! First notice that charabah is used legitimately for localized patches of dry land. Notice that eretz is also used legitimately for localized pieces of land; indeed, it is often used in phrases or constructions which speak of the inhabitants of the land.

Secondly notice that Peter switches words in 2 Peter 3:5-7. When he speaks of the creation of the universe, and of its destruction, he refers to ge, the physical clod of dirt; but when he speaks of the Flood, he refers to kosmos, the world. Since this is the world which God so loved, and the world which we overcome (e.g. 1 John 5:5), it is legitimate to say that "world" is really a locution for the inhabitants of the world.

So put yourself in the shoes of a Bible-believing creationist. (Not that the evolutionists don't believe the Bible. You just like calling yourself that because it makes you feel good, and it's true after all.)

You have just read Genesis chapters 1-5, which not only tell you that humanity has appeared on the scene very recently, but that they initially reproduced very slowly. (It took Adam and Eve 130 years to father three sons!) Where were they all? On the Euphrates floodplains, as the place names in Genesis 2 make clear.

Then you get to:

Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (Gen 6:11-13, ESV)

Which earth has been "filled with violence through them"? You're pretty sure that the early humans haven't had time to reach Australia or America yet, so how could those lands be filled with violence? No, you understand now that since the Flood was meant to punish and destroy all human violence, it only had to inundate all human land - and based on what you have been reading, it is clear that here, at the start of human history, only the Middle Eastern Fertile Crescent was human land, and so only the Fertile Crescent needed to be flooded.

And voila! Indeed there are plenty of incidents in which the entire place was underwater for yoinks. You just need to pick out the most recent event (because hey, God promised He wouldn't do it again, right?) and there you go - Noah's Flood!

But haven't there been lots of local floods since then? Sure. Recently half the city of Brisbane was underwater. But here's the thing: was all humanity in danger when Brisbane sunk? No, only the humans in Brisbane - and even then, most of them survived. So God has indeed fulfilled His promises. Never since Noah's Flood has He sent a flood, local or global, in which all humanity was imperilled and there was no reprieve in sight.

theFijian · Feb 17, 2011

<staff edit>
But you want us to believe you?
<staff edit>

Aw and we were getting along so well too!

Papias · Feb 17, 2011

Rex Lex wrote:

Wow, how fouled up you are. You want us to believe YOU instead of Jesus: "the scripture cannot be broken".

No, as I pointed out in the post, I want us to believe the holy spirit, who is showing us that the passages are figurative by leading Mt to arbitrarily take names out. You want us to believe you over the holy spirit?

That there are missing names in some of the genealogies is, for now, a mystery,

In other words, you agree that this makes no sense to your literal reading. It does, however, make perfect sense if the Holy Spirit is showing us that the geneologies are figurative using the inconsistent geneologies.

So Judes words, "And Enoch also the seventh from Adam..." holds no sway in your thinking about those genealogies? They are not literal, just because you say so. We should all believe you instead of the Holy Spirits inspired word.

Um, you did read, I hope, that it is the Holy Spirit, in Mt's gospel, that is telling us they are figurative, right? We should all believe you instead of the Holy Spirits inspired word??

So all those names were not literal and there are 'mistakes' because of things like Matthews 'thing' for the number 14. Your contempt for God's Word is very evident, Papias.

not mistakes, but instead clear instruction that these are figurative. You are the one, by saying the omissions are "a mystery", who is closer to saying they are a mistake.

So it just couldn't be that the Holy Spirit LED Matthew to register Jesus family lineage in that manner...just because you say so. The truth is that God had a divine reason for inspiring Matthew in this matter but it is clear that you can't even grasp why it was written that way.

Did you even read my post? I've been saying along that the Holy Spirit did this on purpose, so as to show us not to take the geneologies literally. That's a divine reason, no?

For those who want honest answers about the geneologies and why they can be trusted over Papias's (& other skeptics) word:

Talk:Biblical chronology dispute - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

(which doesn't appear to even address the omission issue. Way to go, quoting an irrelevant page.....)

You are in error about Uzziah. Uzziah (called Ozias in Matt.) and Azariah are the same person.

Did not my list show them to be the same person? Again, did you even read my post?

The fact that there are missing names here is by divine design and Matthew followed that design. But this mystery was largely solved by the Liberty Commentary, Thomas Nelson publishers, p. 4.

So is it divine design, or a mystery? You have stated both several times. So which is it? Or are you just confused?

Among other reasons, ""The significance from the exile to the birth of Jesus of the number 14 seems to come from the numerical values of the Hebrew consonants in the name DAVID which add up to that number." According the Bullinger the entire geneology of Jesus in Matthew is divisible by seven, God's perfect number.

Yes, of course. That's obvious, and the omission to show this, is possible because the Holy Spirit knows the geneologies are figurative. Otherwise, Mt is either mistaken or the 14 thing doesn't work. Sounds like you agree with me. Or, is it a mystery? Or, is it a divine plan? I can't tell even what your position is.

Concerning your salvation, I would say you are as lost as Assyrian. Borrowing the name of a heretic like pope Papias might mean you are Roman Catholic in which case I would inquire if you place your total faith and trust in Jesus Christ or is it in the Holy Mother church, the virgin Mary, and your confessions to a priest(?), none of which are biblical. But if you have ever been truly saved by grace through simple faith in Jesus then why in the world are you attacking God's inspired Word?

Just because I'm Catholic and part of the Mother Church doesn't mean that I ever said you have to be. It sounds like you have some anger or baggage over the Catholic church. I hope you get over it at some point in your life.

Maybe you can get away with your heresies on this board of evan-jelly-cle minded moderators but you won't get away with it before the Lord on Judgment day.

If you are going to insult the moderators, don't expect me to join you.

You may reply but I won't be reading it. I will be logging off shortly for I have found other websites I like much better than this one.

Wow. I would have thought that an open minded person like you would have wanted to hear other views, like mine and especially like the many actual experts on this board. After all, learning is the antidote for ignorance.

I do wish you the best, and hope that all of us continue to learn.

Papias

yeshuasavedme · Feb 17, 2011

Papias said:
...

Do you agree that Mt cut out these people to make his 14 thing work? That shows it is a figurative geneology, not a literal one. Scripture indeed cannot be broken, that's why the text itself pushes for a figurative interpretation.

That sounds an awful lot like saying that if I don't agree with your literal interpretation, then you question my status as a Christian. Of course Jesus has a right to sit on the throne, even if there are figurative parts, including his geneology, in one's chosen Bible.

Papias

The mystery of "skipped" generational lists is in the Word itself, in that when a man marries a woman who is an aunt or great aunt of his father, the father is not counted in the legal record of numbers of generations going back from Christ to Adam.

God counted four generations from Jacob going into Egypt to the exodus, skipping Amram, because his wife was the daughter of Levi, his grandfather.
Jacob
Levi
Jochebed
Moses

Num 26:59 And the name of Amram's wife [was] Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom [her mother] bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.In the book of Enoch, we also read of more skipped generations in the legal countings, back to Adam. Technically, the generations are more, but legally, counting back to Adam, the fathers are not counted in the numbers of generations, who married their father's aunts or great aunts, and so on.
So different lists have reasons for them that are found in the Word, after all.
There were seventy generations from Noah to the Atonement of Jesus Christ, according to the book of Enoch: and so there are, in the legal countings.

yeshuasavedme · Feb 17, 2011

shernren said:
Wooo, did I miss the party?

I just want to point out a little belatedly that the word used in Genesis 7:22 for "dry land" (H2724, charabah) is not the same word used in Genesis 1:9-10 for "dry land" (H3004, yabbashah).

charabah goes on to be used to describe both little patches of dry land:
Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. (Exod 14:21, ESV)

...

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.First, the "earth" was a globe of water, with only one "face" of waters.

The word used in Genesis 1:9,10 is then referred to as the earth, which "dry" has a "face".
There is one water mass below the stretched out heavens, on earth, called "seas", and one dry mass, below the stretched out heavens, on earth, called "the dry", and after that, just as one day includes both the period of day and night, so earth also can include the dry and the water, together.

The earth was "the dry", translated with "land" added.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [ ] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

Adam multiplied on the "face" of the earth:
Gen 6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when Adam/men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Jpark · Feb 17, 2011

solarwave said:
Hi,

I know the Flood isn't strictly to do with origins, but it seems quite connected to it

So my question is, the Noah's Flood was worldwide how did plants survive?

I think placement in time is essential. Most believers place it thousands of years ago in the geologic time scale. But how about millions of years ago? Wouldn't the plants be different in that time than it is recently?

zeke37 · Feb 18, 2011

Papias said:
Rex Lex wrote:

No, as I pointed out in the post, I want us to believe the holy spirit, who is showing us that the passages are figurative by leading Mt to arbitrarily take names out. You want us to believe you over the holy spirit?

In other words, you agree that this makes no sense to your literal reading. It does, however, make perfect sense if the Holy Spirit is showing us that the geneologies are figurative using the inconsistent geneologies.

Um, you did read, I hope, that it is the Holy Spirit, in Mt's gospel, that is telling us they are figurative, right? We should all believe you instead of the Holy Spirits inspired word??

not mistakes, but instead clear instruction that these are figurative. You are the one, by saying the omissions are "a mystery", who is closer to saying they are a mistake.

Did you even read my post? I've been saying along that the Holy Spirit did this on purpose, so as to show us not to take the geneologies literally. That's a divine reason, no?

(which doesn't appear to even address the omission issue. Way to go, quoting an irrelevant page.....)

Did not my list show them to be the same person? Again, did you even read my post?

The fact that there are missing names here is by divine design and Matthew followed that design. But this mystery was largely solved by the Liberty Commentary, Thomas Nelson publishers, p. 4.

So is it divine design, or a mystery? You have stated both several times. So which is it? Or are you just confused?

Yes, of course. That's obvious, and the omission to show this, is possible because the Holy Spirit knows the geneologies are figurative. Otherwise, Mt is either mistaken or the 14 thing doesn't work. Sounds like you agree with me. Or, is it a mystery? Or, is it a divine plan? I can't tell even what your position is.

Just because I'm Catholic and part of the Mother Church doesn't mean that I ever said you have to be. It sounds like you have some anger or baggage over the Catholic church. I hope you get over it at some point in your life.

If you are going to insult the moderators, don't expect me to join you.

Wow. I would have thought that an open minded person like you would have wanted to hear other views, like mine and especially like the many actual experts on this board. After all, learning is the antidote for ignorance.

I do wish you the best, and hope that all of us continue to learn.

Papias

hi

are you guys arguing over Christ's genealogy?
you know there are two right?
ya, sure you do...right?
one from Mary's side, and one from Joseph's side

and there is just NO contradiction whatsoever when divided properly...
literal too!

this link may be helpful for both of you to understand the genealogy of Christ

The Two Genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 - Appendix to the Companion Bible

zeke37 · Feb 18, 2011

yeshuasavedme said:
The mystery of "skipped" generational lists is in the Word itself, in that when a man marries a woman who is an aunt or great aunt of his father, the father is not counted in the legal record of numbers of generations going back from Christ to Adam.

God counted four generations from Jacob going into Egypt to the exodus, skipping Amram, because his wife was the daughter of Levi, his grandfather.
Jacob
Levi
Jochebed
Moses

Num 26:59 And the name of Amram's wife [was] Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom [her mother] bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.In the book of Enoch, we also read of more skipped generations in the legal countings, back to Adam. Technically, the generations are more, but legally, counting back to Adam, the fathers are not counted in the numbers of generations, who married their father's aunts or great aunts, and so on.
So different lists have reasons for them that are found in the Word, after all.
There were seventy generations from Noah to the Atonement of Jesus Christ, according to the book of Enoch: and so there are, in the legal countings.

names can be "blotted out" for idolatry...

leads to the end time test as well..who will worship the false Christ?
who's name will be blotted out of the Book of life?

The Flood

Newbie

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

CF Advisory team

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God Save The Queen!

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Listening to TW4

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Listening to TW4

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

IMO...

IMO...

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency