No, but seriously, on another tangent ...

Why do people assume God to be a He and Jesus to be white? I mean, if God is God, couldn't God appear however God wanted to appear to anyone? God could be Aslan if that suited him.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000

"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."
-Matthew 1:17

So, Matthew specifies that there were exactly forty-two generations from Abraham to Jesus (so that's who wrote the gospel of Matthew! Douglas Adams!) even though it only lists forty-one, while Luke gives at least fifty-seven (or even more, given your claim that "tou" is actually Greek for "descendant of", not "son of"). How do you explain that one, w/o contradicting your earlier assertions?

You have read the passages in question, haven't you? You're not attempting to debate a point w/o researching it, are you?

Look up the book "The Chronological Life of Christ, Vol. 1: From Glory to Galilee," by Mark E. Moore. Page 26. I'll give you a (relatively) brief rundown.

You may be interested to know that Matthew does not include a list of ALL the names in the genealogy going back to Abraham. There are four in First Chronicles that he didn't include. The reason: Jews (the people Matthew was mainly writing for) weren't interested in knowing every single name. Just in lines of descent. People would frequently "forget" to include ancestors that weren't flattering to the family. Oddly, Matthew includes a couple rather immoral women like Tamar and Rahab. Trying to make a point about forgiveness?

The three groups of fourteen (David's mentioned twice, being the important one; Jewish ideas of symmetry were kinda strange back then) are obviously based upon the Hebrew number system fixation on seven. It's a poetry thing that REALLY works better in Hebrew. There're some puns in I think Ezekiel that only work in Hebrew, too, and some of the Psalms are helped by an appreciation of Hebrew poetry.

Then we get to the differences. If you arrange the lists paralell, you discover that before David, they're practically identical, but afterwards, they're completely different. Thus, we're probably dealing with two different descendants of David. It seems to me that the best theory listed about why both are listed as Joseph's genealogy is that Mary may have had no brothers or older sisters. Thus, she would be the heiress of her family. However, by marrying her, Joseph effectively would become heir, and thus it becomes his spot in the Luke genealogy of Mary's family. Notice that while Matthew includes women, Luke doesn't. Again, thus Joseph.

As for the "all the generations" statement, all the generations from Abraham to David WERE fourteen generations, by both accounts. However, it don't say that the other two sets of fourteen were all from their time period. Translation from Latin and Greek does funny things to sentence structure sometimes.

I actually have what I consider a pretty good amature theory on what might be a better translation, but there wouldn't be any point to posting it.

"The three groups of fourteen (David's mentioned twice, being the important one; Jewish ideas of symmetry were kinda strange back then) are obviously based upon the Hebrew number system fixation on seven. It's a poetry thing that REALLY works better in Hebrew.

So, you're admitting that they changed things to make it sound better. That doesn't sound like a very trustworthy source.

"As for the "all the generations" statement, all the generations from Abraham to David WERE fourteen generations, by both accounts.

As I just pointed out, they are not. Can't you count?

the names given in the Greek versions of the gospels (I'm tired of dealing w/ varied English translations):

Matthew:               Luke:
1.  Abraam             1.  Abraam
2.  Isaak              2.  Isaak
3.  Iakob              3.  Iakob
4.  Ioudas & Thamar    4.  Iouda
5.  Phares             5.  Phares
6.  Hesrom             6.  Hesrom
7.  Aram               7.  Arni
                       8.  Admin
8.  Aminadab           9.  Aminadab
9.  Naasson            10. Naasson
10. Salmon & Rhakhab   11. Sala
11. Boes & Rhouth      12. Boos
12. Iobed              13. Iobed
13. Iessai             14. Iessai
14. Dauid              15. Dauid

There. Definitive proof that Matthew shows fourteen generations and Luke shows fifteen. Now, why would you even say that they both have the same number, unless you have no idea what you're talking about?

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

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

You will die.

No, nothing was changed at all. It's a slight mistranslation of the word that is usually translated as "son of" that is causing your confusion. It's consistant with everything else. Things were merely arranged to seem more attractive to the Hebrew eye.

As for the extra generation supposedly mentioned by Luke, if you read the footnotes (assuming you have a decent study bible), you'll see that there are several variations in the available ancient manuscripts. Most don't have the name "Admin" listed. I'd guess someone screwed up copying the thing at some point.

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

The simple fact of the matter is that these things were written by people. People who were trying to get other people to join their religion. The authors wrote things that weren't quite true, in order to appeal to their given audiences. Now, in my opinion, the vast majority of what's in those gospels falls under this category. Obviously, you won't admit that, but can't you at least realize that some things were changed in the name of "poetic license"? I'll bet even biblical scholars know this. I remember learning in religion class that the story of the Magi was actually BS, but the authors of Matthew put it in because the people they were targeting would like it.

And why do you keep going on about the mistranslation of "tou"? Your assertion is that it should be changed to "descendant of" to allow for more generations. But Luke is the book that uses it, and that already has more generations.

Lastly, I find it interesting that, since I proved you wrong about the respective numbers of generations from Abraham to David in each gospel, you chose to simply ignore it, rather than admitting that you were wrong...

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

You've already said that Matthew's bit was specifically made to be symmetrical. Any rational person would realize that this strongly suggests that the facts were altered to fit this symmetry.

But no facts were altered. All the statements are consistant, as it was never stated that the second and third groups of 14 in Matthew were ALL the generations in their particular time period. Just the first group.

And why do you keep going on about the mistranslation of "tou"? Your assertion is that it should be changed to "descendant of" to allow for more generations. But Luke is the book that uses it, and that already has more generations.

Your point being? Maybe Luke didn't skip any generations in his genealogy of Mary, but Matthew did in his genealogy of Joseph, to keep his symmetry intact. Maybe they both skipped. Ancient Hebrews weren't worried about knowing every single generation, and that's the group Matthew was writing to. Luke, OTOH, was writing to Greeks, as I recall, and thus would have a different style.

Just because one provided more info, or provided it in a different form, than the other doesn't mean one contradicts the other.

I find it interesting that, since I proved you wrong about the respective numbers of generations from Abraham to David in each gospel, you chose to simply ignore it, rather than admitting that you were wrong...

I WASN'T wrong. Most ancient manuscripts of Luke, from which the Bible is translated, have the same number of people between Abraham and David as Matthew does. Look at an NIV sometime. They go with the majority, and make a note of it. The translation you were reading out of was incomplete in its information.

"The Greek word in question, which is translated 'the son of,' is more appropriately translated as 'the decendant of.'"

That's Luke. That's the one that counted backward, using "son of". Matthew counted forward, using the whole "so-and-so begat such-and-such" format.

"Maybe Luke didn't skip any generations in his genealogy of Mary, but Matthew did in his genealogy of Joseph, to keep his symmetry intact."

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

"...it was never stated that the second and third groups of 14 in Matthew were ALL the generations in their particular time period. Just the first group."

Well, I don't know anything about Greek sentence structure, nor how well it was translated from the Aramaic, but the sentence�

"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."
-Matthew 1:17

�in English says "all the generations" a single time. All the prepositional phrases after that ("from Abraham...", "from David..." and "from the deportation...") fall under it. Therefore, in English, the "all" applies to each one. I'll be happy to diagram the sentence if necessary...

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

"Most ancient manuscripts of Luke, from which the Bible is translated, have the same number of people between Abraham and David as Matthew does."

So you're saying that, as long as some of them agree, it's okay? There are still differences in some, then. For all you know, the ones that match were altered specifically for the purpose of making them match...