Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God ... (correction) Message-ID: <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 13:58:40 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1293 Posted: Wed Jul 17 13:58:40 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 06:13:30 EDT References: <184@gymble.UUCP> <626@umcp-cs.UUCP> <568@hou2b.UUCP> <318@utastro.UUCP> <1278@uwmacc.UUCP> <615@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 37 > In article <1278@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > > Matt 1:16 says: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary" > > > > > > Luke 3:23 says: "Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." > > > > ...Judah the son of Jacob > > ...Judah the son of Israel > > > > ...Joshua, son of Nun > > ...Oshua, son of Nun > > > > Reuel, the father-in-law of Moses... > > Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses... > > [Mike Huybensz] > Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations > between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41? Each with a "begat" > or "son of" between? That can't be accounted for by name changes. > > Matt: Joseph, (9 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (14 ommitted), David. > Luke: Joseph, (18 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (20 ommitted), David. > > I guess fundamentalists have to reject counting as well as evolution, since > it contradicts with their biblical interpretation. :-) My posting was only a hypothesis. It seems to have been disproven by another posting. However, I'll address the point of your remarks, since they show your over-literalism. :-) "Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly". It may mean, and sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |