Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    When I wrote the Bible Wheel book, I frequently referred to Christ as the "Living Word of God" and the Bible as the "Written Word of God." There are many strong parallels between the two. We talked about this years ago in a thread called Analogies between the Living and the Written Word. I thought it was very significant, which is why it was one of our first threads which I started a few days after opening this forum.

    The title of Christ as the Alpha and Omega coheres quite beautifully with the alphabetic structure of the Wheel which "seals" the Bible from Aleph to Tav.

    The Bible Wheel remains the best evidence I have ever seen for accepting the Bible as a whole as designed by God. Your argument concerning the 66 generations requires too much manipulation and has too many problems to be convincing to me.

    Not really. Just 'cause the NIV decided to omit the 'Assir', and just 'cause it throws in extra Zerubbabel's (the correct one is at Ezra 3:2), shouldn't keep us from pursuing the logic of the "trail from Adam to Jesus" inherent in the Toledoth's.
    I agree there is something intriguing about the numbers 39 and 27 and their relation to powers of three. But that feels more like a "hint" - I don't see anything solid I can derive from it. I can see that 39 x 27 = 81 x 13 = 1053, but what does that have to do with leaven?

    The hidden things of scripture need some study, and since you disallow the 5 crosses at Calvary, I suspect something's been 'ingrained' to reject close examination -- I had once 'imagined' about the 3^4, but never really thought it would show, so now I consider as how the 81 was hidden... IMO, on purpose so we'd have this discussion!
    In the same fashion, the disputes over the genealogy have been designed by the Holy Ghost as a challenge for us, so we'll "Study to be approved workmen". That's my opinion--sticking to it. Amen!
    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. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,714

    The Joseph in Matthew is Mary's FATHER. The Joseph in Luke is Mary's Husband.

    Only the one Joseph in Matthew. Goes: Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus.

    Four Joseph's in Luke: The pedigree of the carpenter husband with family name..

    I appreciate the translator's difficulty (like with NIV 'Assir'), but believe this is a difficulty we can resolve and understand correctly.
    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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,065
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    In the same fashion, the disputes over the genealogy have been designed by the Holy Ghost as a challenge for us, so we'll "Study to be approved workmen". That's my opinion--sticking to it. Amen!
    If "the disputes over the genealogy have been designed by the Holy Ghost" then why did the same "Holy Ghost" inspire these verses?

    1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

    Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

    And given the amount of manipulation required to arrive at your table of 66 generations, how can it serve as reliable "evidence" of anything? It seems your conclusions contain too much uncertainty to be convincing. I explained my reasons in this post from the 33/66 Pattern thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough 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.

    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.

    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. Believers have suggested various ways to harmonize this contradiction by 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
    And here is how you answered:

    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!
    I am not "searching for a WAY OUT." That's a cop-out. The problem is that I have high standards for evidence, and your evidence has problems. As long as those problems remain, I don't understand how you can "believe it's the Truth that only the Holy Spirit can convince you of." The Holy Spirit would have no problem convincing me if it were the truth. He'd only have to present the evidence, and I would believe. But the evidence is missing, and so I cannot believe. It's really pretty simple. For example, I still believe the evidence of the Bible Wheel is valid because no one has ever shown me a reason to reject it. I would accept your theory if it were supported by the facts.
    • 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. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,714

    Have it your way, Rich. Gave it my best shot, I think. But about the 'endless genealogies', have always reckoned that to be speaking of how the 12 Tribes argued between themselves over property rights, etc. Even so, the criticism has always rankled me, so you may be right. You don't like my bringing Zelophehad into the conversation, and not Hezekiah either, so let's just forget the whole matter.
    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

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,065
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post

    The Joseph in Matthew is Mary's FATHER. The Joseph in Luke is Mary's Husband.

    Only the one Joseph in Matthew. Goes: Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus.

    Four Joseph's in Luke: The pedigree of the carpenter husband with family name..

    I appreciate the translator's difficulty (like with NIV 'Assir'), but believe this is a difficulty we can resolve and understand correctly.
    Your answer appears confused. You must have meant that there are two Joseph's in Matthew: her father (Joseph #1) and her husband (Joseph #2). But this doesn't work because both are called the "aner" of Mary, and the father is never called the aner in Greek:
    Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph [#1] the father [aner] of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. ... 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph [#2], before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph [#2] her husband [aner], being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
    Your theory directly contradicts the text of Scripture and the facts of the Greek language. Why would anyone believe it? How is it that you can think on the one hand that the Bible was inspired, while on the other hand showing that it is too confused to be believed?
    • 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

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,714

    NOT Confused. Only one Joseph in MATTHEW, and he's the Father of Mary.

    What's hard to understand about the 4 generations of Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus ??

    In the Old Testament it was Jacob to Joseph to the Two Tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. (no daughters). Sorry if that confuses you.
    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

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,065
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post

    NOT Confused. Only one Joseph in MATTHEW, and he's the Father of Mary.
    OK - no confusion. Mary and her dad were married:

    Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph [her father] being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and he took unto him his wife [who was also his daughter]: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

    Glad you cleared that up for me!

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    What's hard to understand about the 4 generations of Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus ??
    Nothing at all! It would have been very simple for the Holy Ghost to inspire Matthew to record that Mary's father was named Joseph, and that her husband was also named Joseph. But the Bible doesn't say that. Why can't you see this?

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    In the Old Testament it was Jacob to Joseph to the Two Tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. (no daughters). Sorry if that confuses you.
    It doesn't confuse me at all. But it has nothing to do with the Joseph who was the husband of Mary.
    • 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

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,714

    Pedigree of Jesus


    This is madness! To be arguing for keeping Mary's husband in the chapter of the Genealogy of Jesus. HE DOESN'T BELONG THERE! Can't help what the old fogies thought back in the days before we had computers, concordances, interlinears, etc. and can understand their difficulty, but just plain old common sense plus believing Jesus was born of a virgin, compels me to question that old fashioned logic.

    Having Mary's husband in the pedigree of Jesus BELIES the Truth. And we ought to be able to see how the Truth of His Pedigree fits with other data and agrees with ALL the evidence.
    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

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,065
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post

    This is madness! To be arguing for keeping Mary's husband in the chapter of the Genealogy of Jesus. HE DOESN'T BELONG THERE! Can't help what the old fogies thought back in the days before we had computers, concordances, interlinears, etc. and can understand their difficulty, but just plain old common sense plus believing Jesus was born of a virgin, compels me to question that old fashioned logic.

    Having Mary's husband in the pedigree of Jesus BELIES the Truth. And we ought to be able to see how the Truth of His Pedigree fits with other data and agrees with ALL the evidence.
    I don't blame you for being frustrated. The problem comes down to one thing: the Bible says that Joseph was the husband [aner] of Mary. You have not dealt with this point yet. Just tell me if this is how you are interpreting the genealogy:
    Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph [#1] the father [aner] of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. ... 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph [#2], before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph [#2] her husband [aner], being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
    Are you saying that there are two Joseph's in this passage - one being Mary's father and the other her husband, and that both were called her "aner"?

    Is that what you are claiming?
    • 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

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,221
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You missed the point of Rose's article. The fact that the male sperm determines the sex of the baby has nothing to do with anything Rose wrote. And your post ignores the Jewish tradition that says a person is Jewish if and only if the mother is Jewish (of if the person converted).
    The reason why children born from Jewish mothers are considered Jews because this is where they got their Jewish blood from. BTW, all of us are considered God's children regardless if one is born Jewish or not the moment we believed in Him.

    The point of Rose's post is that the birth of females is ignored in the Bible almost entirely. The only births that mattered were the births of males. The women are treated as secondary characters of little importance. This reveals a profound male bias in the Bible.
    I have said before which you have ignored that this is due to respect of Adam being the elder and that Eve was made from Adam. It has nothing to do with male bias. God love both males and females equally and females are not denied the entry into the kingdom of heaven. The birth of males were highlighted more than the females because he carries the father's name. The wife usually carries the husband's name such as Mrs X to indicate and remind others that she belongs to her husband Mr. X and not someone else and the children born belongs to both of them.

    You said: "Since the sex of the fetus came from the father, it is correct that they named after the father rather than after the mother." Why is that? You gave no reason. And besides, the opposite is true. It's easy to know who the mother is, whereas the father could have been anybody. Therefore, the child should be named after the mother since that's the only person that can be identified with certainty. That's why the Jews say a Jew must be have a Jewish mother.
    I have given the answer which you ignored. This is precisely the case which may help in preventing adultery and promiscuity. If a woman have multiple partners, she will not know who the child's father is. It will not be fair to the child born without knowing who is his real father. However, if the mother were to named him after the father's name, she and the child will be able to know who is the real father. Even if the woman were to marry and divorce multiple times and mothered children from multiple husbands, she and the children and others will know whose child belongs to who if the children was named according to their own fathers instead of the mother's name. In olden days when men usually died young due to wars, the child born to him will not be able to know who was his father unless he carries the father's name. This is fair to everybody...to the child, the father, the mother and others if the child carries the father's name instead of the mother's name; the child will know who his father is, the father will know who is his child and the mother and others will know who is the father.


    God is Wise and May God Bless the Family.
    Last edited by CWH; 06-11-2012 at 10:13 AM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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