Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: inconsistencies in the Bible (digest of postings) Message-ID: Date: 1 Jan 90 15:44:40 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 43 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) writes: >This is precisely the kind of violence to Luke's words to which The Rev. >Dr. Farrar was objecting in the quotation that I posted recently. It is a >good example of the contortions to which inerrantists must occasionally >resort in order to maintain their unusual view of the Bible. May I assume, then, that you feel that the sinless angels of our perfect God whom He entrusts with His most important messages also speak less than perfect Greek? We know that the mother of Jesus was Mary and that the father of Jesus was God, yet this same Gospel writer, Luke, quotes the angel of God as referring to David as the father of Jesus. Luke 1:32 says "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:". Please permit me to repeat that the terms father and son as used throughout the Scriptures refer to a direct, although not necessarily immediate, relationship of a man to one of his descendants or ancestors respectively. Jesus was the son of Mary who in turn was the daughter of Heli. This means that Jesus was the grandson of Heli. Since Jesus was a direct male descendant of Heli, Luke was in no way using incorrect terminology when he declared that Jesus was the son of Heli. If this genaeology were not that of Mary then the Scriptures would contain no proof whatsoever that Jesus was a blood descendant of David. No genaeology of Joseph could possibly do this as he was not the biological father of Jesus. In the response to which I am replying an alternative way of interpreting Luke's genaeology was given. It involved a rather complicated series of interactions whose only proof was ancient tradition. The Scriptures declare that it is very dangerous to use tradition as a means of interpreting God's Word. Matthew 15:1-3 says "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3