I think “genealogies in Genesis and Matthew” – this is talking about two different sets of genealogy composed, presumably, in very different eras. Lots can be said and has been said— including the observation by many that it is only the Western mindset that expects genealogies to flow a certain way-- whereas other cultures allow for differences of the sort that we find incompatible. But that observation is directed (when I have seen it) towards discussions of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. I would think the Genesis version falls into anothe category.
1 Like
Heh. I don’t think there are any ANE cultures where spiders were heavenly representatives. Sumer and Egypt had spider deities, though.
I keep forgetting about Marduk’s dragon; what I recall is that he slew Tiamat. But yes, Marduk’s Dragon could appear as a messenger or manifestation of Marduk’s authority.
2 Likes
Here’s a explanation of all living Creatures. The Recipe of Life has been found in 1953 to be DNA. My assessment is all life’s DNA has been an adjustment of it’s DNA by Our Father and His Angels to fit the Environment. His timing also decided when to create what type of Life and movement of the planet’s Techno-Plates.
I do appreciate time-saving posts.
As a caution on concordances, though, the dragon name of “Rahab” (used disparagingly of Egypt) is not the same in Hebrew as “Rahab” of Jericho, despite the plausibility of naming a 3 year old after a chaos monster.
Mythical names are not uncommon in European genealogies for the purpose of bragging about connections. Anyone who can trace a connection back to the British royal family has a genealogy going back to Wotan, so Thor’s a great-great-great…uncle. The biblical individuals generally aren’t as much grounds for bragging, as far as we know.
The numbers in the genealogies have several peculiarities, with the added complication of messy transmission. Copying words, if you write the wrong letter it may not be a word at all or not a word that makes sense, and so many mistakes are obvious. No matter what number you write, it is a number. Various plausible ideas exist, but I don’t know of any good way to test among them, in addition to the high probability of more than one significance being at work. E.g., changes in number system, symbolic multiplication, dates applying to a lineage rather than to an individual, symbolic numbers (several relate to astronomical cycles such as 365).
3 Likes
And then from Wotan it goes by way of Beowulf to Noah…
LOL A lot of Christian treatments of the text are pretty weak. Jesus claiming to be God. The suffering servant of Isaiah as a prophecy of Jesus. The use of “Lucifer” as referring to the devil. But this argument of yours is weaker than these. “Walking” and “crawling” are frequently used for things which are not even close to physical locomotion, such as when God is described as walking in the garden with Adam and Eve. At most you can call this a mixing of metaphors, but since these are not written in the same text by the same author then even this doesn’t apply.
No the naming of the serpent as the adversary is not so clear as crystal that nobody can argue otherwise. But compared to these other Christian interpretive leaps this one is a rather small step, so I stand by my original words “practically named in the text as adversary.”
My view is that the being was simply likened/compared to the serpents/snakes as a creature that creeped undetected into our lives sometimes bringing death by means of poison. Snakes themselves are a product of evolution, and for the being in question, crawling on the belly only represents a loss of status and appreciation as the words often do metaphorically.
Huh… the AI claims “nakhash” can also be used to mean “shining one.” It also suggests a connection to an Ammonite king with a similar name, which is frankly reminiscent of the origin of “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14 also talking about a king.
The genealogies differ with each other and with the Old Testament, so we should not use them to try to prove history.
One says Joseph descended from Nathan and the other says Solomon. Both cannot be literal history.
And Matthew’s list leaves out 2 or 3 generations recorded in the Old Testament, so Matthew’s count of 14 generations is inaccurate.
Our faith’s foundation is not the perfection of the scriptures. It was the resurrection that proves Jesus is who Jesus said He is.
They appear to be trying to use them as proof of the existence of Adam.
(Because they need Adam for the existence of the Fall)
Richard
1 Like
That genealogies have gaps or possibly errors does not change that the political function of Biblical genealogies is not met by using fictional characters. That is a non sequitur.
Vinnie
The geneologies are proven on the balance of probabilites to be historical…theres no allegory there.
We have lots of physical evidences for them right back to at least Eber…Shems great grandson.
Given i knew my Great Grandmother, thats pretty compelling evidence timeline such that if we know the individuals really existed to Eber, then its highly likely that Noahs family history and story is also true exactly as written and this is the entire problem TEism cant beat. The only way to get around biblical history is to ignore it…to pretend.
When one ignores the history, the beliefs/doctrines start to quickly unravel…indeed become so outrageous they arent even supported via bible references. Then significant conflicting interpretations arise and it becomes a disjointed, confused mess.
The gaps claim in the geneologies is nonsense…there are supporting narratives outside of the geneologies that cover those gaps.
Lets also not forget that we can and have dated said physical evidences to the time periods indicated in the bible…they align closely enough to validate the narrative.
Thats not entirely correct…you need to actually study those a little more carefully
Solomon was Josephs family hertage, Nathan was Marys…scholars have known this for donkeys ages, its not new.
There is also a “Leverite” view that Joseph had two fathers…that he was raised by a step father after his biological father died.
That disagrees with the text of Luke, which begins with Joseph, not Mary.
Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,
24 son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph,
25 son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai,
26 son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda,
27 son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri,
28 son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er,
29 son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi,
30 son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim,
31 son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David…
Yes, some people try to reconcile the texts, saying this was Mary’s lineage. But reconciling the text by denying what it says is no reconciliation at all. It is evidence of disrespect for the text.
1 Like
The “political function” is met by Jesus being a descendant of David. Isn’t it?
Not only highly unlikely, but history indicates that the world was high and dry at the time bishop Ussher’s genealogy based chronology has Noah adrift the flood.
A hypothetical that the earth might have been too dry at the time does not change the historical facts about family lineages. We have family lineage evidence that are far more direct than antibibilcal assumptions about geology from individuals who were never there.
A further evidence should be noted at thist point as its now very relevant here…
Job Chapter 1
1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job
Funny thing, the land of UZ is the place where its namesake actually established his home…you know who UZ was?
UZ was the son of Aram. Aram was the Grandson of Shem.
The significance of Aram is this…
Job is not a mythical fairytale. The man really did live according to the Bible…and this is where TEism has its history all screwed up!
Back to answering your post directly, we have plenty of evidences for a global flood:
- marine fossils on high ground in places where its dry ground and always has been dry ground
- massive fossil graveyards in places where its clear they are buried in rapid sedimentary deposits…these are found around the world, not just in one or two locations
- the preservation of fossils which if they had been buried slowly, this would not have preserved them in the manner in which they are preserved
- similar sedimentary rock layers found across the world that are clearly from the same event and time in history
- features within the sedimentary layers
- no signs of millions of years between rock layers, we find strong evidence of rapid deposition at the rock layer boundries
- rock folds where there arent cracks…clear evidence the folds orccured when the rock was soft and plyable…in a plastic state
when we compare the above evidences (and more that i have not mentioned) with the literal biblical narrative, they align with it…and that is the point here, the entire world view is consistent with the available evidences when one doesnt try to explain away said evidences with fabricated new theories and doctrines. TEism has gotten so good at explaining away, it cant even reconcile its own beliefs with Bible referencing…indeed some TEists, including the odd one on these forums, cant even reconcile the notion that there will be a real Second Coming of Christ (because its actually completely at odds with known science)
some scientific problems TEism must face with the Second Coming:
- A body that has experienced biological cellular death cannot be brought back to fully conscious state (scientific fact)
- A body cannot float up into the sky against gravity, so Christ could not have risen nor can millions/billions at the second coming (a scientific fact)
- A human cannot survive the vacuum of outer space (scientific fact)
- spirits do not have a physical voice box, so they cannot interact with air molecules in such a way as to make sounds. The idea spirits can talk is utter nonsense (scientific fact!)
