Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God ... (correction)
Message-ID: <380@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 11:22:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.380
Posted: Thu Jul 18 11:22:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 12:19:44 EDT
References: <184@gymble.UUCP> <626@umcp-cs.UUCP> <568@hou2b.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 21

> "Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly".  It may mean, and
> sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants.

I will point out that the NEB uses "was the father of" instead of "begat"
in the relevant passage from Matthew.  But never mind.  It seems to me
that Paul has implicitly recognized that (in this case at least) a literal
interpretation of the words of Scripture cannot be sustained; which is all
that I and (I think) Charlie have been saying.  If you say that "son of"
doesn't always mean "son of", and "father of" doesn't always mean "father of",
then you are no longer upholding a strictly literalist interpretation of
scripture.  You are now saying that the Bible has to be interpreted, and
the question then becomes one of degree.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)