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