Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,828
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there dux

    The problem I have with the genealogies is that they are quite unreliable and confused. You have to manipulate the data to make it fit your pattern. That's why it doesn't seem like it's real.

    Here are the facts that make it look unreliable:

    1) Luke contradicts your pattern when he says there are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.
    Really? You need to get more sleep, I think.
    2) Matthew contradicts your pattern when he says that Jospeh was Mary's "aner" (man/husband), whereas you say that Joseph was really Mary's father. This point alone makes the pattern very suspect since no translator agrees with your interpretation.
    We've discussed this before--about 'gavra' or Gbra from the Peshitta not meaning husband either..
    3) You include "Assir" as a son of Jechoniah whereas 9 out of the 15 translations of that verse listed on this page don't agree that it is a name at all, but translate it as "prisoner" or "captive."

    4) You omit Pedaiah who is explicitly stated to have been the father of Zerubabbel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 which contradicts the other texts that say he was the son of Salathiel.
    That's a red herring for sure -- I count 3 by that name, allowing for spelling
    .5). speculating about a possible Levirate marriage or that the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household." There is no way for us to know the true solution. It could just be another error like Luke's inclusion of Cainan.

    Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors, and the genealogies are the least reliable of all. I don't see how anyone could have any confidence that there is a real pattern in the genealogies since you had to manipulate the data too much to get the pattern and your pattern directly contradicts the conclusions of many biblical scholars as well as the plain text of Scripture. If you have any regard for the Bible as the true "Word of God" how can you think that he would encode a message in such an uncertain, contradictory, and confusing way? Could any serious scholar have any confidence that the pattern is really there if it requires so much manipulation to make it appear? I think not.

    Remember, we are supposed to be engaged in a search for truth, not a game of force-fitting patterns that "confirm" some preconceived idea.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    Seems to me you're searching for a WAY OUT, and have found it. As for me, I believe it's the Truth that only the Holy Spirit can convince you of, and I've found it! EUREKA!
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,191
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Seems to me you're searching for a WAY OUT, and have found it. As for me, I believe it's the Truth that only the Holy Spirit can convince you of, and I've found it! EUREKA!
    Why would I want a "way out"? I still accept the evidence of the Bible Wheel even though I reject the Bible as the Word of God. If you had evidence that supported your pattern I would believe it with no hesitation. You are the one who is looking for a reason to reject the obvious truth that your genealogy contradicts the Bible.

    Your answer only confirms that you have no regard for "truth" at all. If you applied such logic to any real endeavor, such as rocket science, your rocket would crash in the ocean.

    This is what blows my mind about people who claim they have found "truth" even as they violate the universal principles that define truth. Your logic is simply fallacious. Why are you so attached to something that cannot be proven and which has so many logical problems?

    Look at what you have done. You had to manipulate the data on FOUR points. Each of those points could have gone the other way. This means that the genealogy given in the Bible could have anywhere from 64 to 68 generations.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,191
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    1) Luke contradicts your pattern when he says there are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.
    Really? You need to get more sleep, I think.
    That's not an answer. You reject the fact that Luke says there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. You have said nothing to justify your rejection of that text. And oddly, you said that "Luke is not wrong" even as you say that Luke IS wrong! That doesn't make any sense at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    2) Matthew contradicts your pattern when he says that Jospeh was Mary's "aner" (man/husband), whereas you say that Joseph was really Mary's father. This point alone makes the pattern very suspect since no translator agrees with your interpretation.
    We've discussed this before--about 'gavra' or Gbra from the Peshitta not meaning husband either..
    That's right - we discussed it. And you chose to go with your interpretation which contradicts every copy of the Greek NT in existence.

    You can't deny that this makes your genealogy suspect.
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    3) You include "Assir" as a son of Jechoniah whereas 9 out of the 15 translations of that verse listed on this page don't agree that it is a name at all, but translate it as "prisoner" or "captive."
    Are you going to answer this point?

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    4) You omit Pedaiah who is explicitly stated to have been the father of Zerubabbel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 which contradicts the other texts that say he was the son of Salathiel.
    That's a red herring for sure -- I count 3 by that name, allowing for spelling

    There is no "red herring" there at all. It is a contradiction that believers have been trying to solve for centuries. Any solution is speculative and uncertain, so the same must be said of your genealogy.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    762

    The 33/66 Pattern

    Hello All,

    I've read the thread so far, and have picked up several points on which to comment.

    From p1
    So, the meaning of 33 and 66 has nothing to do with being born again, it has everything to do with who is "God's Ruler".
    Hi HeIsLord,

    There is something in Hebrew which permits opposites to be expressed by certain words. Richard can, I'm sure, find examples for us. Because of this, I suggest you're putting too much emphasis on the one side of possible interpretations, while in Hebrew thought, the writer/reader would have been using context to determine the bias of emphasis/meaning, frequently.

    Thus, God's Ruler is absolutely fine, but is not necessarily in contradiction to other possible meanings. For instance, unless we are born again, we are not under God's Rulership. God's Ruler implies there is something/someone to be ruled over. See what I mean?



    Hi dux,

    In the next post I'll paste a link to the finer details of how a baby's blood group is determined. I looked it up after finding the comment on your website, because I've been hearing the myth you propounded:
    Modern medicine knows that the baby’s blood is determined by the father.
    online, so many times, I've lost count. And, it has never been the truth; more, it precedes 'modern medicine' by a good several decades.

    Concur about the same seed being passed down: from son to grandson to great-grandson, etc.
    This is also a myth, because while the Y chromosome may be passed from generation to generation, the X which goes with it in a normal male, always came from the child's mother. In other words, if a Y sperm fertilises an X ovum, the X sperm from the father did not fertilise the ovum. Maybe you knew this? I mention it because even if the Y is the same in brothers of the same father, the X in each brother may be different. So, when you say 'the same seed', that's not possible.

    Which is why the status of the parent-child becomes (more) important (than the biological descent). (And yes, we're back to adoption. )



    To Richard, greetings;

    I am only applying the standard tests for truth. Luke says that there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. If this were the pattern you were looking for, would you accept Luke over the MT? Please think carefully about this.
    This is an excellent question, and I thank you for it.

    One thing I wonder about (you'll remember) is whether Eve fits into the count at all, as a generation all on her own? I realise that later she became one flesh with Adam and together they bore fruit, but, what kind of difference would it make if all the numbers were 1 greater?

    it is taken as the "Word of God" even though it contains much that directly contradicts that idea.
    It struck that by the same measure you put to dux, it is valid to ask if you (personally) were to accept the Bible's definition of God, whether you would still think the text contradicts 'that idea'? You have your own idea of what God is like, and while the Bible presents Him differently, you feel free to reject the words attributed to him.

    Isn't this logic just as dodgy as dux's?




    16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

    Ephesians 3

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    762
    The answer follows the following question, found here:
    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../mole00338.htm


    I was wondering where the blood comes from when a baby is conceived. I have heard that the bloodline only comes from the father, and that if the mother's blood gets into the umbilical cord when the baby is still attached, that both the mother and the baby could die. I was just wondering if that was true?...'

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    First of all, the baby makes its own blood. Once the baby begins to grow, it forms its own bones, skin, hair, etc. and also begins making blood. The blood type (ie, A, B, AB, or O) is determined by both parents. Type A and Type B are both dominant, which means that if they are there, they will show up. Type O blood is recessive, which means that both parents have to give the baby an O type gene for it to have type O blood. If the baby gets and O gene from one parent and a B gene from the other, it will have type B blood and the O is "hidden". If one gives a B and the other an A the baby will be type AB. Anyway, no blood passes through the umbilical cord. Only nutrients and oxygen are small enough to pass through the filters in the cord.

    However, during birth, the placenta detaches from the womb and some bleeding occurs. Only at this time can blood from the BABY get into the mother's blood stream. If the baby has a different blood type than the mother, she will make antibodies to the baby's blood. So there is usually no problem during the first pregnancy. NEXT time she gets pregnant, if the baby is a different blood type than the mother, the antibodies that she made during the first birth can cross the umbilical cord into the baby (because they are small enough) and hurt the baby. But there are shots that can be given during the first birth that can "suck up" all the baby's blood cells so that the mother does not make antibodies to them. The only time something could happen to the first baby is if the placenta detaches partially and some bleeding is going on, but not enough to cause miscarriage. This is rare.

    vanhoeck
    16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

    Ephesians 3

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    Hello All,

    I've read the thread so far, and have picked up several points on which to comment.
    Hey there Charisma,

    I'm glad you joined the conversation. It's been a while since you and I have talked. You bring up some excellent points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    From p1
    Hi HeIsLord,

    There is something in Hebrew which permits opposites to be expressed by certain words. Richard can, I'm sure, find examples for us. Because of this, I suggest you're putting too much emphasis on the one side of possible interpretations, while in Hebrew thought, the writer/reader would have been using context to determine the bias of emphasis/meaning, frequently.

    Thus, God's Ruler is absolutely fine, but is not necessarily in contradiction to other possible meanings. For instance, unless we are born again, we are not under God's Rulership. God's Ruler implies there is something/someone to be ruled over. See what I mean?
    An obvious example is when Job's wife tells him to "curse God, and die" (Job 2:9). The word translated as "curse" is barak which is almost always translated as "bless." Most translations have it this way, but Young's Literal Translation has "bless God, and die." But that wouldn't make any sense, would it? Blessing God would not cause someone to die.

    Personally, I see no reason we should assume that the "theme" of Leviticus 12 is "Gods' Ruler" based on the fact that it is book 3, chapter 12. On the contrary, the theme of that passage is entirely centered on the concept of uncleanness caused by childbirth. The attempt to force this to fit the pattern of "God's Ruler" makes no sense to me at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    Hi dux,

    In the next post I'll paste a link to the finer details of how a baby's blood group is determined. I looked it up after finding the comment on your website, because I've been hearing the myth you propounded: online, so many times, I've lost count. And, it has never been the truth; more, it precedes 'modern medicine' by a good several decades.

    This is also a myth, because while the Y chromosome may be passed from generation to generation, the X which goes with it in a normal male, always came from the child's mother. In other words, if a Y sperm fertilises an X ovum, the X sperm from the father did not fertilise the ovum. Maybe you knew this? I mention it because even if the Y is the same in brothers of the same father, the X in each brother may be different. So, when you say 'the same seed', that's not possible.
    That's great! I love debunking false ideas - especially when they have been spewed all over the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    To Richard, greetings;
    I am only applying the standard tests for truth. Luke says that there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. If this were the pattern you were looking for, would you accept Luke over the MT? Please think carefully about this.
    This is an excellent question, and I thank you for it.
    Glad you appreciate it! I think it is the most important question because there are so few "standards" used in Bible study folks tend to forget when they are just making things up or picking and choosing the bits and pieces that fit their preconceived ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    One thing I wonder about (you'll remember) is whether Eve fits into the count at all, as a generation all on her own? I realise that later she became one flesh with Adam and together they bore fruit, but, what kind of difference would it make if all the numbers were 1 greater?
    I can't see how that could work. Eve was not "begotten" by Adam - he was not her "father."

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    it is taken as the "Word of God" even though it contains much that directly contradicts that idea.
    It struck that by the same measure you put to dux, it is valid to ask if you (personally) were to accept the Bible's definition of God, whether you would still think the text contradicts 'that idea'? You have your own idea of what God is like, and while the Bible presents Him differently, you feel free to reject the words attributed to him.

    Isn't this logic just as dodgy as dux's?
    The Bible doesn't present a single unified and coherent picture of "God." That's the problem. It presents very different versions of God, from the very anthropomorphic Bronze age tribal war God who gets angry, changes his mind, and doesn't know everything, to the abstract God of the philosophers who is "Pure Being" and "Eternal" and "Unchanging" and "Omniscient."

    But even if I accepted the traditional definition of the "God of the Bible" (whatever that might be) I would still think that the text contradicts that idea since the actions attributed to him, such as his sanctioning the capture of 32,000 virgins after killing everyone else, are fundamentally immoral.

    So no, I do not think my logic is "dodgy" in any way at all. But I certainly am open to being corrected if you can show that I am deceiving myself.

    Thanks for the very interesting comments, and the "challenge" to my point of view.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,828
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    That's not an answer. You reject the fact that Luke says there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. You have said nothing to justify your rejection of that text. And oddly, you said that "Luke is not wrong" even as you say that Luke IS wrong! That doesn't make any sense at all.
    Did not say Luke was wrong; neither the man nor the book. Guessed Copyist error.
    That's right - we discussed it. And you chose to go with your interpretation which contradicts every copy of the Greek NT in existence.

    You can't deny that this makes your genealogy suspect.
    Never said it wasn't, but solution for me,..
    Are you going to answer this point?
    OK. I begin in Genesis and follow up with 1Chr1:24, and Abraham comes up #20. So when Luke adds that extra(?) Cainan, I have to sleep on it a bunch. The pattern 3x14 in Matthew bears similarity to the 3x10 of the OT, and also compares with the double 19+14. I'm beginning to think you aren't paying attention--hence the charge "sleepy".
    There is no "red herring" there at all. It is a contradiction that believers have been trying to solve for centuries. Any solution is speculative and uncertain, so the same must be said of your genealogy.
    I've know for years about "Assir" being the captive, according to NIV, but am still going for his birth in Babylon; admittedly because of the need for seeing the line of Solomon and the 66 generations, and because it agrees with the Triple-Acrostic pattern.
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,191
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Did not say Luke was wrong; neither the man nor the book. Guessed Copyist error.
    So you are saying that the words written in the book of Luke are wrong. That's what I meant. You have no way to know if it was the writer of Luke's gospel or a copyist, so that point is moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    You can't deny that this makes your genealogy suspect.
    Never said it wasn't, but solution for me,..
    Why are you so attached to a pattern that is so uncertain?

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    OK. I begin in Genesis and follow up with 1Chr1:24, and Abraham comes up #20. So when Luke adds that extra(?) Cainan, I have to sleep on it a bunch. The pattern 3x14 in Matthew bears similarity to the 3x10 of the OT, and also compares with the double 19+14. I'm beginning to think you aren't paying attention--hence the charge "sleepy".
    I have written a detailed analysis of your pattern and you claim I'm not "paying attention?"

    The fact that there is a "similarity to the 3x10 of the OT" does not solve the problem that I pointed out.

    You seem to be the sleepy one.

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    I've know for years about "Assir" being the captive, according to NIV, but am still going for his birth in Babylon; admittedly because of the need for seeing the line of Solomon and the 66 generations, and because it agrees with the Triple-Acrostic pattern.
    It's not just "according to the NIV." Is is according to 9 out of 15 of the major translations. That's 60%. It's not definitive, so you could be right. But you are in the minority opinion, and so we have another reason to see your pattern as suspect.

    And if Assir was a person, why doesn't the Bible state that he had any children? You inserted him into the genealogy to make your pattern work. No serious student of Scripture would find the pattern convincing because it has too many uncertainties. You had to manipulate the data to make your pattern. I don't understand why you can't see this. I worked on patterns in the Bible for over a decade and I NEVER NEVER NEVER would let myself manipulate data because I knew that would corrupt my work.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    762

    The 33/66 Pattern


    2 Samuel 12:24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.


    Solomon was Bathsheba's second son with David, (The first died.) not the fifth, yet Solomon appears at the end of the list of Bathsheba's children in 1 Chronicles 3:5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel: {Shimea: or, Shammua} {Bathshua: or, Bathsheba} {Ammiel: or, Eliam}

    Maybe it was easier to remember in that order, and, the scribe goes on to list Solomon's sons, straight after.
    16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

    Ephesians 3

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,191
    Hey there duxrow,

    Here's an important question. You reject Cainan in Luke's genealogy as probably a copyist error even though it is found in every Greek copy of Luke that we have. Likewise, you reject Matthew's statement that Joseph was the husband of Mary even though it too is found in every Greek copy of Matthew.

    Don't you see this as a problem? It seems you simply reject what the Bible says when it doesn't fit the pattern you are looking for. To me, this undermines not only your pattern, but the Bible itself as untrustworthy. If your conclusions are true, what else did the Greek NT get wrong? How can we trust it at all?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •