SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Who is missing?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )
PosterThread
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Who is missing?

Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and[size=14] [b] [/b] [/size]
David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias; 7 And [size=4] [b]1[/b] [/size]
Solomon begat Roboam; and [size=14] [b]2[/b] [/size]
Roboam begat Abia; and [size=14] [b]3[/b] [/size]
Abia begat Asa; 8 And [size=14] [b]4[/b] [/size]
Asa begat Josaphat; and [size=14] [b]5[/b] [/size]
Josaphat begat Joram; and [size=14] [b]6[/b] [/size]
Joram begat Ozias; 9 And [size=14] [b]7[/b] [/size]
Ozias begat Joatham; and [size=14] [b]8[/b] [/size]
Joatham begat Achaz; and[size=14] [b]9[/b] [/size]
Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And[size=14] [b]10[/b] [/size]
Ezekias begat Manasses; and [size=14] [b]11[/b] [/size]
Manasses begat Amon; and[size=14] [b]12[/b] [/size]
Amon begat Josias; 11 And [size=14] [b]13[/b] [/size]
Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, [size=14] [b]14[/b] [/size]about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

Mat 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel[size=14] [b]1[/b] [/size]
; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; [size=14] [b]2[/b] [/size]
13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; [size=14] [b]3[/b] [/size]
and Abiud begat Eliakim; [size=14] [b]4[/b] [/size]
and Eliakim begat Azor; [size=14] [b]5[/b] [/size]
14 And Azor begat Sadoc; [size=14] [b]6[/b] [/size]
and Sadoc begat Achim; [size=14] [b]7[/b] [/size]
and Achim begat Eliud; [size=14] [b]8[/b] [/size]
15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; [size=14] [b]9[/b] [/size]
and Eleazar begat Matthan[size=14] [b]10[/b] [/size]
; and Matthan begat Jacob; [size=14] [b]11[/b] [/size]
16 And Jacob begat Joseph[size=14] [b]12[/b] [/size] the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. [size=10] [b]13[/b] [/size]


17 So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] [b]fourteen generations. [/b]

What do you guys think?


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/5/2 15:48Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re: Who is missing?

Here are the 2 theories I have ran across.

1. Matthew is pointing out that this genealogy is not complete; there were not actually 14 generations between the landmarks he indicates
the practice of skipping generations at times was common in the listing of ancient genealogies; Matthew is doing nothing unusual here

2 The organization around the number 14 was perhaps for the purpose of easy memorization


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/5/2 16:06Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi everyone.

I checked at Answersingenesis and found an article that said Matthew's genealogy was intended to be incomplete and stated rather, 3 groups of 14 names.

I decided to check this out and put a list of the names together for us:

1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Zara
7. Esrom
8. Aram
9. Aminadab
10. Naasson
11. Salmon
12. Booz
13. Obed
14. Jesse

15. David the king
16. Solomon
17. Roboam
18. Abia
19. Asa
20. Josaphat
21. Joram
22. Ozias
23. Joatham
24. Achaz
25. Ezekias
26. Manasses
27. Amon
28. Josias

29. Jechonias
30. Salathiel
31. Zorobabel
32. Abiud
33. Eliakim
34. Azor
35. Sadoc
36. Achim
37. Eliud
38. Eleazar
39. Matthan
40. Jacob
41. Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born
42. Jesus, who is called Christ.

Hope this is helpfull.


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2006/5/2 17:54Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

Thank you. Can you give me a link or the name of that article. I looked around on their site for a moment but must have overlooked it.

Thanks.


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/5/3 11:59Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

Quote:
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Zara
7. Esrom



AHHH.. Now I see why I was so confused by your list. I thought I was just miscounting. You counted Phares the generation before Zara when actually they are in the same generation.

Matt 1:3And [b]Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar;[/b] and [u]Phares begat Esrom[/u]; and Esrom begat Aram;

So the question still stands.. :-(


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/5/5 11:22Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi Preachparsly and everyone else.

Quote:
You counted Phares the generation before Zara when actually they are in the same generation.



The reason for this is that the article from AIG suggested that Matthew's Gospel intended to record 3 groups of 14 names and not a complete genealogy, so I just put the names in order as they appeared so we could verify that there were indeed 42.

As to each representing a different generation I do not know. Perhaps some of the generations overlaped?

Hope this helps some.


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2006/5/5 16:48Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

I understand that that it is not a complete genealogy, but it says in vs 17 there are 3 sets of 14 [u]generations[/u], not just 14 names. And it doesn't list 42 generations.

Someone asked me this question and I didn't have an answer...

I'm just looking for a sound answer. I am sure this question will come up again sometime.

EDIT:
By the way, thank you for the links and input.


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/5/8 14:14Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

I received this answer on another board... what do you guys think?

Irenaeus (~180 A.D.) and a few manuscripts of Matthew plus the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the 12th century have "Josiah begat Joakeim, Joakeim begat Joakein and his brethren..." This was probably a very early scribal error which happened because the names of these two kings sound alike. It makes sense for Joakein to be in the third set, since that begins the era of the exiles.

This also shows how an early copyist's error can become the "standard" for the canon, even when its obviously incorrect.

As I have pointed out in my own thread, the whole Matthean genealogy was the work of an Ebionite who did not believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God. This genealogy contradicts 1 Chronicles 3 (missing kings Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah) and Abiud/Abior is not listed among the sons of Zerubbabel (nor are any of the descendants of Abiud).

Nevertheless, Matthew 1:1 and 1:20 as well as Luke 1:27 and 2:4 leave no doubt that Joseph was descended from king David and thus of Messianic pedigree.


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/5/25 15:49Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi everyone.

PreachParsly, something in this qoute raises my concern about this source

Quote:
As I have pointed out in my own thread, the whole Matthean genealogy was the work of an Ebionite who did not believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God.



Is he saying that the genealogy that we have in our Bibles was written by someone other than Matthew; that this author did not believe in the deity of Christ?

When I read these sorts of claims I get the impression that those who are handling the Word of Life are approaching the subject of its inerrancy with very little fear and trepidation. To make such claims without the slightest suggestion that [b]you could be[/b] wrong, seems arrogant.

We should remember too that the Scripture warns

Quote:
He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.



The ancient and worn Anvil of God's Word is surrounded by the broken and rusty fragments of the once lofty hammers of the proud minds of men.

I don't mean to suggest that applies to you or anyone here, I was just musing a bit. :-D

Peace be with you all in Messiah Jesus


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2006/5/25 17:57Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

I agree, that answer didn't set well with me.

Here is a article I ran across also.

http://www.peshitta.org/bethgazza/Gabra.htm

It goes through and says that the word husband where is says Joseph was the husband of Mary is a mistranlation of the aramic (which some believe Mat was oringinally wrote in) to the greek.

The author believes that Mary's father was Joseph and also married a man named Joseph.


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/5/26 10:01Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy