ArchivedThe Bible is accurateLady Fatima wrote:Peace Light,
Bring your evidence from the Bible, where Luke is for the genealogy of Mary!
Well, Lady Fatima here is your evidence: Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
[Thirty years of age] This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: see Num 4:3.
[Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph] This same phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person: toutou (NT:5127) pais (NT:3816) nomizetai (NT:3543), he was supposed to be this man's son.
Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in Matthew, Matt 1, and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter.
Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of sons properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc. But Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to God himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed the son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, etc. This receives considerable support from Raphelius' method of reading the original oon (NT:5607) (hoos (NT:5613) enomizeto (NT:3543) huios (NT:5207) Iooseeph (NT:2501)) tou (NT:3588) Heeli (NT:2242), being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, etc. That Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.
As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, Dr. Pearce has fully shown, nomizesthai (NT:3543) bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.
The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Matt 1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1 Chron 3:17, and Matt 1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft)
The reason we have 2 genealogies for Jesus is to show one that He is descended through the royal line of David on His father's side and therefore would be legally eligible to inherit the throne as inheritance is through the male line; two to show that He was an ethnic Jew since Jewish ethnicity is proven through the female line. The Jews are a matriarchal society.
As to rainbows: 1 : an arc or circle that exhibits in concentric bands the colors of the spectrum and that is formed opposite the sun by the refraction and reflection of the sun's rays in raindrops , spray, or mist
Prior to the flood the requirements for a rainbow could not be met since the earth was surrounded by water vapor, which would not have allowed the light refraction required to produce a rainbow.
What I find interesting is that Muslims and other non-Christians seem to think that the only way to discredit Christianity and the Bible is by the use of empirical science. The Bible is not a science textbook; it is a book that teaches us the character, nature, and purposes of God. A literal acceptance of Genesis 1 is fairly recent phenomena among Christians dating back to about the middle of the 1800’s. What is interesting about Genesis 1 is the order of creation follows the same order found in science. DNA has shown that every human being on the face of the earth is descended from the same woman and the same man (our microcondrial parents). The Bible states the earth is round, hung in space, David wrote about streams in the oceans long before we knew about the Humboldt Current and other such currents in the oceans, etc. There is enough anecdotal evidence in the Bible to satisfy most skeptics.
Archeological discoveries over the last 150 or so years have verified many locals and incidents recorded in Scripture that were previously thought to be myths.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |