To extract more from the seemingly contradictory genealogies that Nobrain wants to justify his rejection of the Biblical account:
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.
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.
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.’"
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.
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: