Both words can be used to indicate indirect descent. For all I know, it's the same word. Greek's weird like that.

So, if your point is that Matthew skips people, why did you say that Luke has the bad translation?

Where did I say that? I said your particular copy of the Bible was missing important information on slightly different versions of the same manuscript. And my point can be both, you know.

I don't know how this works in the Greek from which it was translated, but I highly doubt that you do, either.

I know enough to know that if the word translated as "all" from Greek only appears once, it's considered ambiguous. It could be modifying all three, or just the one. You have to judge by context. Since the context requires that it only modify the first...

So you're saying that, as long as some of them agree, it's okay?

"Most." Not "some." Meaning the great majority agree. As I've said, chances are that someone just screwed up making a hand copy of the original (or an early copy thereof) ninteen centuries or so ago. And again, you have to go by context. We already have a record of those generations from two other sources, and the majority of Luke manuscripts agree with those sources. It is logical to assume that the correct source to use is the one that agrees with as many other valid sources as possible, both internally and externally. Thus, no Admin, and Luke and Matthew are still consistant.

For all you know, the ones that match were altered specifically for the purpose of making them match.

And how would you suggest someone go about this? I think you're just getting desperate for an explaination.

Actually, that one's fairly easy.

Most 'records' of ancient times, until the printing press was invented, were copied from generation to generation by people who were generally under the command of the Church. (Monks, mostly, are responsible for all those old 'illuminated manuscripts')

So maybe somebody reads something that he's copying and notices a discrepancy. So he points it out to the Friar In Chief, and the guy says "change it so it matches, and burn the old copy. we can't have anything undermining Our authority." So they do. Voila, altered text. Happened all the time. Really, the Soviets under Stalin did the same thing with their history books.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

----------

pasai oun ai geneai apo abraam ewv dabid geneai dekatessarev kai apo dabid ewv thv ~metoikesiav babulwnov geneai dekatessarev kai apo thv metoikesiav babulwnov ewv tou cristou geneai dekatessarev

So 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.

----------

First we'll translate the obvious words.

pasai oun ai (generations) apo (Abraham) ewv (David)(generations) (fourteen) kai apo (David) ewv thv ~metoikesiav (something to do with Babylon) (generations) (fourteen) kai apo thv metoikesiav (something to do with Babylon) ewv tou (Annointed One (Christ)) (generations) (fourteen)

----------

From this, we can probably deduce the meaning of the remaining words. "Apo" would seem to mean "from," "ewv" would seem to mean "to." Since we can also tell which word represents Babylon, we can deduce that "thv metoikesiav babulwnov" refers to the Babylonian capture of Israel, or the "deportation to Babylon." Thus we plug again.

----------

pasai oun ai (generations) (from) (Abraham) (to) (David)(generations) (fourteen) kai (from) (David) (to) (the deportation to Babylon) (fourteen) kai (from) (the deportation to Babylon) (to) tou (Annointed One (Christ)) (generations) (fourteen)

----------

Now it seems logical to assume that "kai" means "and," and that leavs us with "tou," and which we can guess means "to." That leaves us with "pasai oun ai" untranslated, but we can assume that it means "so all the." Since none of these words appears more than once in the verse, it follows that the word "all" only appears once, and is thus ambiguous. Yeah, in English, it would certainly modify all three groups, but not necessarily in Greek. It looks to me like the translators ignored sentence structure altogether here.

You can diagram the English sentence all you want, Tim. I'd love to see you diagram a Greek one.

As a matter of fact, you transliterated every omega as a 'w'! Can you not even properly interpret the letter that you use as your name?!

Here's the proper transliteration. I've used capital letters to denote eta and omega, as opposed to epsilon and omicron...

pasai oun hai geneai apo abraam heOs dauid geneai dekatessares, kai apo dauid heOs tEs metoikesias babulOnos geneai dekatessares, kai apo tEs metoikesias babulOnos heOs tou khristou geneai dekatessares.

pasai == "all", "the whole" (plural)
oun == "so"
hai == I can't find it
geneai == "generations"
apo == "from"
abraam == "Abraham"
heOs == "until"
dauid == "David"
dekatessares == this seems to be an alternative form of "tessareskaideka", which is "fourteen"
kai == "and"
tEs == I can't find it
metoikesias == "captivities"
babulOnos == not precisely the word for "Babylonian" ("babulOnios"), but that's what it probably was meant to be
tou == I can't find it, but this is the word used in Luke that's translated as "son of"
khristou == "anointed"

So all hai generations from Abraham until David fourteen generations, and from David until tEs Babylonian captivities fourteen generations, and from tEs Babylonian captivities to tou anointed fourteen generations.

Like I said, I don't know Greek grammar, but, in a way, this seems like it could be set up in the following manner...

So all the generations:

• from Abraham to David: 14
• from David to Babylon: 14
• from Babylon to Jesus: 14

That's just speculation, of course. But, then, so is what you're doing.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

The lowercase sigma at the end of a word actually looks like an 's', yet he got a 'v' for those.

I should expect you, Frank, of all people, to appreciate such distinctions. What if people started transliterating the 'þ' in Old English words as a 'p', rather than 'th'?

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Either way, I'm still right. The sentence is still ambiguous, and is thus determined by context. It can mean either one, and thus there's only a conflict if you want there to be.

------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson

False. If a statement is ambiguous, it is only open to interpretation insofar as no other information is available. That does not apply to this situation. The statment is ambiguous in and of itself, but when other available information is taken into account, a complete picture of the veracity of the statement can be found.

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.

"Or maybe I just copied and pasted out of a freely available Greek NT available on the internet? It didn't look right to me, either, but I figured, 'Well, these people probably know how to represent Greek characters in English.'"

Yet another example of how you'll believe almost anything you read? I mean, apparently, even when your own better (I use that term loosely) judgement tells you otherwise, you'll still believe someone if you think they're an "expert"...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.