Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God ... (correction)
Message-ID: <1216@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:54:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1216
Posted: Sun Jul 14 08:54:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 04:18:56 EDT
References: <184@gymble.UUCP>, <626@umcp-cs.UUCP> <568@hou2b.UUCP> <318@utastro.UUCP> <1278@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 33

>>> Regarding the two genealogies given for the Lord, I'm supprised that
>>> it is not commonly known that they are for His forebears through His
>>> mother's and step-father's families.
>>
>>It is amazing the lengths to which people will go to rationalize a
>>plain contradiction in scripture.  "...known that they are...?"
>>By whom?  Where is the evidence for this?  The words in scripture are 
>>clear enough:
>>
>>Matt 1:16 says: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary"
>>
>>Luke 3:23 says: "Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."

> ...Judah the son of Jacob
> ...Judah the son of Israel (1)
> 
> ...Joshua, son of Nun
> ...Oshua, son of Nun (2)
> 
> Reuel, the father-in-law of Moses...
> Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses... (3) [DUBOIS]

(1) involves two names for the same person.
(2) involves an alternate spelling for a name (apparently)
(3) forgive me if I'm off base here, but doesn't a man with two wives
	probably have two fathers-in-law?  (and two mothers-in-law!!  No
	wonder they outlawed polygamy! :-)

In any case, still sounds like plain old wash-it-away rationalization of
contradiction to me.
-- 
Like a bourbon?  (HIC!)  Drunk for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr