Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is Jesus son of David Message-ID: <631@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 15:24:47 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.631 Posted: Mon Jul 22 15:24:47 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 07:42:08 EDT References: <1278@uwmacc.UUCP> <615@cybvax0.UUCP> <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 28 In article <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > In article <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > >> [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. > > >"Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly". It may mean, and > >sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants. > > This strikes me as really stretching. One normally goes one generation at a > time when establishing a lineage. It's also not at all clear why it's > really very important to establish that both lineages are correct (or > indeed, that either is correct). Thanks for the support, Charlie. I do wish more people would righteously point out and disown such piteous attempts. (In return, I might be persuaded to rebut Rosen here or there. Though I would only do it to substitute my own agnostic, sociobiological viewpoints.) The purpose of this discussion was to put another nail in the coffin of biblical inerrancy (at least literal inerrancy. It would be fun to hear some more rationalizations along the lines of figurative, metaphorical, or allegorical inerrancy.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh