• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
For a "Christian" you sure are Biblically illiterate.

Seth was NOT Adam and Eve's FIRST child!

I don't claim to be any sort of label, not that it's stopped you arrogantly putting me in the atheist bracket of which I'm not. You provided the "details" so how old was Adam when Cain and Abel were conceived? It didn't occur to you that it was telling that your link left the most obvious bit out? Most people know about Cain and Abel, believers or not. There's also a big case for allegory in that as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_and_Abel

Here you are, on TOL, telling us what the Bible "means" and yet you have practically NO knowledge of its actual CONTENTS.

I'm not "telling you what it means". Your latter is just the same arrogance. I used to be in a fundamentalist church and read the Bible daily. I started to question what we were taught to interpret so just stick to the topic.

Here we go again with your OPINIONS about the contents of a book that you have practically NO knowledge of.

As above.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I don't claim to be any sort of label, not that it's stopped you arrogantly putting me in the atheist bracket of which I'm not.
Your type of "Christianity" has much in common with atheist's. You both claim that the Bible is wrong about just about everything.

You provided the "details" so how old was Adam when Cain and Abel were conceived?
The Bible does not say how old Adam was when Cain and Abel were conceived... but is DOES say how old Adam was when he had Seth.

Are you going to criticize the Bible again?

It didn't occur to you that it was telling that that your link left the most obvious bit out?
No idea what you're trying to say.

Most people know about Cain and Abel, believers or not.
Then why did you question me about "Adam starting a family" with Seth?

There's also a big case of allegory in that as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_and_Abel
Ah... that great source of Bible knowledge... Wikipedia.

You'll accept anything but the truth as long as you can find a link on the Internet somewhere.

I'm not "telling you what it means".
YOU are TELLING me that Adam is just an "allegory". And yet you're provided NOTHING in the way of any argument to support that lame idea. You continue to BEG THE QUESTION time and again (AB: "it's obvious").

I say that it's not obvious at all. Your idea is a fairy tale. The Bible demonstrates time and again that Adam was a real MAN... the FIRST man. Even going to far as to give his AGE at death.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Your type of "Christianity" has much in common with atheist's. You both claim that the Bible is wrong about just about everything.

Well, no, but hardly surprising that you'd carry on with the same ole...

The Bible does not say how old Adam was when Cain and Abel were conceived... but is DOES say how old Adam was when he had Seth.

Are you going to criticize the Bible again?

Why doesn't it say how old Adam was when he had his first children if this is supposed to be a literal record of events? Why stipulate how old he was when Seth was born and not Cain and Abel? Seems rather odd. I'm not criticizing it in the first place, I'm just not bound by a fundamentalist belief system.

No idea what you're trying to say.

See above.

Then why did you question me about "Adam starting a family" with Seth?

Because it's odd that it left out Adam's original children if this were literal.

Ah... that great source of Bible knowledge... Wikipedia.

You'll accept anything but the truth as long as you can find a link on the Internet somewhere.

It's a great source for all sorts of knowledge and I'll bet you didn't even read it?

YOU are TELLING me that Adam is just an "allegory". And yet you're provided NOTHING in the way of any argument to support that lame idea. You continue to BEG THE QUESTION time and again (AB: "it's obvious").

I say that it's not obvious at all. Your idea is a fairy tale. The Bible demonstrates time and again that Adam was a real MAN... the FIRST man. Even going to far as to give his AGE at death.

Science isn't a "fairy tale". You can dismiss it as much as you like, revel in your belief system that insists that the earth is young all you want. That's your prerogative. Considering how much evidence you've been presented with by those better versed than me, then that's likely what you'll do regardless.

So, another merry go round and probably pointless to continue with it. (Again)
 

Right Divider

Body part
Why doesn't it say how old Adam was when he had his first children if this is supposed to be a literal record of events?
The Bible does NOT record every single detail possible. That does NOT mean that it's not a literal record of events.

Once again.... you sound just like the atheists...

Why stipulate how old he was when Seth was born and not Cain and Abel?
The Bible does not say why. Why does this bother you? Oooo, that's right... you're looking for excuses not to believe it.

Seems rather odd.
To someone trying to force the "allegory" story on it... sure.

I'm not criticizing it in the first place, I'm just not bound by a fundamentalist belief system.
:juggle:

Because it's odd that it left out Adam's original children if this were literal.
Once again... you're trying to FORCE your "requirements" on the Bible.

It's a great source for all sorts of knowledge and I'll bet you didn't even read it?
I contribute money annually to keep it in existence. That does NOT mean that it has any great Biblical insights. And no, I didn't read it. I don't waste my time on sidetracks. If it's got something interesting... tell what it is. It don't have time to chase all of your attempted distractions.

Science isn't a "fairy tale".
That is AGAIN... HILARIOUS.

You can dismiss it as much as you like, revel in your belief system that insists that the earth is young all you want. That's your prerogative. Considering how much evidence you've been presented with by those better versed than me, then that's likely what you'll do regardless.
Back to your hero's again... so classic.

Perhaps YOU should actually learn something instead of relying on others to do you bidding.

I've been a science geek all my life and have spent almost 40 years as a computer engineer. So I know a great deal about how science works. You, on the other hand, appear to be almost completely ignorant of it.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
The Bible does NOT record every single detail possible. That does NOT mean that it's not a literal record of events.

Once again.... you sound just like the atheists...

So, it doesn't strike you in the least bit odd that Adam's age is left out in regards to his firstborn but it seems to be important to specify that he was a hundred and thirty when Seth came into the world? What you mean by the latter is anyone's guess. "The atheists"? What, this just another example of you labelling people into what you presume they think?

The Bible does not say why. Why does this bother you? Oooo, that's right... you're looking for excuses not to believe it.

No, but hardly surprising that you'd go down that route. I find it curious is all.

To someone trying to force the "allegory" story on it... sure.

The allegory is pretty easy to spot so no force required.


Oh, the joys of throwing off fundamentalism. Juggling is much more fun!

Once again... you're trying to FORCE your "requirements" on the Bible.

Um, no, I'm really not. That's just you trying to tell me what I'm not actually doing.


I contribute money annually to keep it in existence. That does NOT mean that it has any great Biblical insights. And no, I didn't read it. I don't waste my time on sidetracks. If it's got something interesting... tell what it is. It don't have time to chase all of your attempted distractions.

Oh, fair enough and kudos on that count. However, it wasn't a sidetrack and completely relevant which is why I linked to it in the first place. It's not that long an article either.


That is AGAIN... HILARIOUS.

Hmm, shout that some more why don't you?

Back to your hero's again... so classic.

Perhaps YOU should actually learn something instead of relying on others to do you bidding.

I've been a science geek all my life and have spent almost 40 years as a computer engineer. So I know a great deal about how science works. You, on the other hand, appear to be almost completely ignorant of it.

Ah, you're parroting Stripe now? Ho hum. You may very well be well versed in certain aspects of science and know computers inside out etc. That doesn't make you well versed on the topic at hand because your knowledge of how actual theories come about in relation to the subject is lamentable. Stick to computers.
 

Right Divider

Body part
So, it doesn't strike you in the least bit odd that Adam's age is left out in regards to his firstborn but it seems to be important to specify that he was a hundred and thirty when Seth came into the world?
Unlike you, I don't need to question God's every move in putting together His Word.

What you mean by the latter is anyone's guess. "The atheists"? What, this just another example of you labelling people into what you presume they think?
They have many of the EXACT same ways of criticizing the Bible text as you. That's the point.

No, but hardly surprising that you'd go down that route. I find it curious is all.
Curious perhaps... but certainly no problem at all.

The allegory is pretty easy to spot so no force required.
Begging the question for about the millionth time.

If it really was an "allegory", that should be easy for you to demonstrate from the text. Instead, you just keep asserting the "truth" of that idea without any support whatsoever. That's a logical fallacy.

Um, no, I'm really not. That's just you trying to tell me what I'm not actually doing.
Just take it naturally and you'd be OK... but you don't. You absolutely do try to force it to fit your ideas.

Oh, fair enough and kudos on that count. However, it wasn't a sidetrack and completely relevant which is why I linked to it in the first place. It's not that long an article either.
Just save us both some time and get to the point.

Hmm, shout that some more why don't you?
OK... HILARIOUS!

Ah, you're parroting Stripe now? Ho hum. You may very well be well versed in certain aspects of science and know computers inside out etc. That doesn't make you well versed on the topic at hand because your knowledge of how actual theories come about in relation to the subject is lamentable. Stick to computers.
You lament because you are the one that does not understand. Your projection of lack of knowledge on others is actually just a reflection of your own lacking of knowledge.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Unlike you, I don't need to question God's every move in putting together His Word.

Funnily enough, neither do I.

They have many of the EXACT same ways of criticizing the Bible text as you. That's the point.

Not much of one then was it? Just vague and non specific.

Curious perhaps... but certainly no problem at all.

Wouldn't you find it odd if the record of a parent started with their third born instead of their first?

Begging the question for about the millionth time.

If it really was an "allegory", that should be easy for you to demonstrate from the text. Instead, you just keep asserting the "truth" of that idea without any support whatsoever. That's a logical fallacy.

Oh, the "logical fallacy" garbage again. Wow, that's not tired at all yet. Did you ever study English literature and poetry in school, or more to the point understand it? If you did, then it's obvious.

Just take it naturally and you'd be OK... but you don't. You absolutely do try to force it to fit your ideas.

No, that's just you once again insisting stuff that nobody is actually doing but it's kinda expected from you now anyway so carry on.

Just save us both some time and get to the point.

Either read the link or don't. It answers you.

OK... HILARIOUS!

Hmm, how someone thinks the phrase "science is not a fairy tale" is hilarious is bemusing but eh, have at it.

You lament because you are the one that does not understand. Your projection of lack of knowledge on others is actually just a reflection of your own lacking of knowledge.

Read back you daft so and so. I'm not lamenting at all. I'm commenting on how lamentable your own knowledge is where it comes to how such theories are formulated and come about and your ignorance has been exposed on the score time and again. Please get with it.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
To extract more from the seemingly contradictory genealogies that Nobrain wants to justify his rejection of the Biblical account:


Matthew

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:
Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers.
Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram.
Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon.
Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David the king.
David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.
Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa.
Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah.
Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah.
Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah.
Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel.
Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor.
Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud.
Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob.
And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.




Luke
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.



To compare:

Luke starts with God through Adam and Noah to Abraham. Matthew does not cover this period.
The two genealogies are then name-for-name through King David.
They diverge after that, with Matthew taking a branch through Solomon and Luke naming Nathan.

A clue to this difference was outlined by JudgeRightly in post #510:

Because there are three of them, not two (or four, if you consider that the Gospel of Mark doesn't have one because Mark is symbolic of "Christ the Servant," and servants didn't usually have genealogies, and the third being in John, starting with God, which shows Christ the Son of God.

Matthew's genealogy is Christ the King (Lion of the Tribe of Judah). David was the king of Israrel, Christ will be King of Israel.
Mark's genealogy doesn't exist...
Luke's genealogy shows Christ the Man, because Adam was the first man, and Christ became a man.
And John's genealogy describes Christ the Son of God, because He, being the Son of God, is God.
...
All of these are representative of Who Christ is, God, Man, Servant, and King.

The genealogies remain distinct — there are even 15 more entries in Luke than in Matthew — through Joseph, when they reintegrate. So the questions are: How could Jacob and Heli both be listed ahead of Joseph? Is this an error by one account or the other? Are these "ethnographies," whatever that might mean in practice?

Another clue is to look at the Greek (and as it turns out, Hebrew). In Luke, there is no specific word used to describe the relationships between each entry. It pretty much just says, for example, Amos, of Nahum (the English adds the specific relationship: "Amos, the son of Nahum," indicating that the translators recognized that the specificity was justified).

In Matthew, the wording and semantics are rendered differently. It says, for example: "Hezekiah begot Manasseh." This gives us unique terminology, which might be a tool to discern why the lists are different, as opposed to chalking it up to error, ignorance or "ethnographies" — whatever that might mean in practice.

So from context, Luke is listing father-son relationships, while Matthew — at least in theory, assuming that the authors were not stupid — is listing something else.

So lets look at the key words stemming from Matthew's gospel: Begat (Greek: gennao, and Hebrew: yalad)

Both languages allow the word to be used in a metophorical sense — yes, the Bible has metaphors. For example:

“God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘You are My Son,
Today I have gennao (begotten) You.’"
Acts 13:33​



Which conveniently links to the Hebrew term:

Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”
“I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have yalad (begotten) You.
Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.'
Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
Psalm 2​



Another OT verse provides a great example of how the same word can be used to mean a parent-child relationship and a relationship that is not so:

So the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she yalad (bore) to Saul, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom she yalad (brought up) for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.
2 Samuel 21:8​



So in a single verse, there are two uses of the word begat in Hebrew, one to show a parent-child relationship, the other to show a non-parent-child relationship. Are we not then justified in assuming that Matthew's genealogy might mean something other than strict father-son links?

Note that Matthew's list does have father-son relationships, King David and Solomon were father and son. You want to call them "allegorical"? Also, Solomon was David's heir. Now there is something to think about. :think:

Remember, Nobrain refuses to explain how these seemingly contradictory lists mean that Adam in Luke's must be "allegorical."

He prefers not thinking, waving off JR's explanation with: "Oh, so now there's symbolism? That's convenient."
You made up the notion that us fundamentalists read the Bible in a woodenly literal fashion. Try to not ever assert or imply that again, you lying troll. :troll:
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Wouldn't you find it odd if the record of a parent started with their third born instead of their first?
No, it's not. There is a reason... Seth was in the line of the ancestors of Christ.... Cain and Abel were NOT.

Oh, the "logical fallacy" garbage again. Wow, that's not tired at all yet. Did you ever study English literature and poetry in school, or more to the point understand it? If you did, then it's obvious.
If you would stop using logical fallacies, I'd stop complaining about it.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Wouldn't you find it odd if the record of a parent started with their third born instead of their first?

This is why Nobrain relies so heavily on his heroes Alate and Barbarian. Any time he tries to engage over the evidence, he quickly exposes how little he understands.
 

Right Divider

Body part
This is why Nobrain relies so heavily on his heroes Alate and Barbarian. Any time he tries to engage over the evidence, he quickly exposes how little he understands.

Yep!

So, he lives until he's literally nine hundred and thirty and it takes him a hundred and thirty years to start having a family? In ancient times, it could be regarded as "old" if you reached fifty...It's not "detailed".
Completely Biblically illiterate and yet he's telling us what is "allegory" and what is not in the Bible. :mock: AB
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
This is why Nobrain relies so heavily on his heroes Alate and Barbarian. Any time he tries to engage over the evidence, he quickly exposes how little he understands.

They're not my "heroes" you dimwit and if your earlier post was aimed at me then no, I do not assert that fundamentalists read everything as woodenly literal in the Bible as it is so learn to read, don't make feeble assumptions and stop acting like da unce. Fundamentalism does have a decidedly more literal interpretation than other theologies but that doesn't mean everything, word verbatim.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Yep!


Completely Biblically illiterate and yet he's telling us what is "allegory" and what is not in the Bible. :mock: AB

You and Stripe are two childish peas in a pod. Believe what you will, there's more fun things to do than waste time with people who act like they're 12.

:e4e:
 

Right Divider

Body part
You and Stripe are two childish peas in a pod. Believe what you will, there's more fun things to do than waste time with people who act like they're 12.

:e4e:

You've said that at least a dozen time.

You make claims that you cannot backup.... you are full of hot air.... I understand how that makes you want to cry when we correctly criticize you for it.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I do not assert that fundamentalists read everything as woodenly literal.

That's great. :thumb:

Now explain how the fact that Genesis has metaphorical content means that it cannot be an accurate account of history.
​​​
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You and Stripe are two childish peas in a pod. Believe what you will, there's more fun things to do than waste time with people who act like they're 12.

:e4e:

:allsmile:

Wake us up when you're done wailing.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
To extract more from the seemingly contradictory genealogies that Nobrain wants to justify his rejection of the Biblical account:


Matthew

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:
Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers.
Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram.
Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon.
Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David the king.
David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.
Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa.
Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah.
Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah.
Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah.
Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel.
Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor.
Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud.
Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob.
And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.




Luke
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.



To compare:

Luke starts with God through Adam and Noah to Abraham. Matthew does not cover this period.
The two genealogies are then name-for-name through King David.
They diverge after that, with Matthew taking a branch through Solomon and Luke naming Nathan.

A clue to this difference was outlined by JudgeRightly in post #510:



The genealogies remain distinct — there are even 15 more entries in Luke than in Matthew — through Joseph, when they reintegrate. So the questions are: How could Jacob and Heli both be listed ahead of Joseph? Is this an error by one account or the other? Are these "ethnographies," whatever that might mean in practice?

Another clue is to look at the Greek (and as it turns out, Hebrew). In Luke, there is no specific word used to describe the relationships between each entry. It pretty much just says, for example, Amos, of Nahum (the English adds the specific relationship: "Amos, the son of Nahum," indicating that the translators recognized that the specificity was justified).

In Matthew, the wording and semantics are rendered differently. It says, for example: "Hezekiah begot Manasseh." This gives us unique terminology, which might be a tool to discern why the lists are different, as opposed to chalking it up to error, ignorance or "ethnographies" — whatever that might mean in practice.

So from context, Luke is listing father-son relationships, while Matthew — at least in theory, assuming that the authors were not stupid — is listing something else.

So lets look at the key words stemming from Matthew's gospel: Begat (Greek: gennao, and Hebrew: yalad)

Both languages allow the word to be used in a metophorical sense — yes, the Bible has metaphors. For example:

“God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘You are My Son,
Today I have gennao (begotten) You.’"
Acts 13:33​



Which conveniently links to the Hebrew term:

Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”
“I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have yalad (begotten) You.
Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.'
Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
Psalm 2​



Another OT verse provides a great example of how the same word can be used to mean a parent-child relationship and a relationship that is not so:

So the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she yalad (bore) to Saul, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom she yalad (brought up) for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.
2 Samuel 21:8​



So in a single verse, there are two uses of the word begat in Hebrew, one to show a parent-child relationship, the other to show a non-parent-child relationship. Are we not then justified in assuming that Matthew's genealogy might mean something other than strict father-son links?

Note that Matthew's list does have father-son relationships, King David and Solomon were father and son. You want to call them "allegorical"? Also, Solomon was David's heir. Now there is something to think about. :think:

Remember, Nobrain refuses to explain how these seemingly contradictory lists mean that Adam in Luke's must be "allegorical."

He prefers not thinking, waving off JR's explanation with: "Oh, so now there's symbolism? That's convenient."
You made up the notion that us fundamentalists read the Bible in a woodenly literal fashion. Try to not ever assert or imply that again, you lying troll. :troll:

thank you for those pearls :thumb:
 

7djengo7

New member
Is the Bible literally correct when it says that the sun is not a god, but that the sun is a light?
<NO ANSWER>

Still no answer from you to the yes-or-no question about the Bible that you were asked by JR. Why can you not answer it?

The sun isn't literally a god.

Who asked you, "Is the sun literally a god?" That's right: nobody did. You were not asked that.

The sun is a massive ball of predominantly hydrogen gas.

Who asked you, "Is the sun a massive ball of predominantly hydrogen gas?" That's right: nobody did. You were not asked that.

How's that not answering the question?

In order to answer the yes-or-no question JR asked you about the Bible, you will need either to say, "Yes [the Bible is literally correct when it says that the sun is not a god...]", or "No [the Bible is not literally correct when it says that the sun is not a god...]" Failing to say either of those things, you have thus far failed to answer the question, and, since you are a hardened liar, you will just continue to lie by saying you've answered it.

How is your refusal to answer either "Yes" or "No" to the yes-or-no question you were asked by JR you answering the question? That's right: it's not you answering the question. You've not answered the yes-or-no question you were asked by JR.


It gives out light, heat and then some.

No one asked you, "Does the sun give out light, heat, and then some?"

Why can you never actually answer the questions you are actually asked? Why do you have to substitute questions nobody asked you, in place of the questions you've actually been asked, and then brazenly lie by saying that you've answered the questions you've actually been asked--when it is patently obvious that you've not answered the questions you've actually been asked?
 
Top