PDA

View Full Version : Father-to-Son Generations..



duxrow
08-09-2014, 10:14 AM
Not sure how to present this -- but I believe some of you have noticed the two (2) Enoch's and two (2) Lamech's;
the first two in the line of Cain and the next two in the line of Seth.
The Book of Jude calls attention to "Enoch, the 7th from Adam", departing from the usual Scripture practice of naming the guys father to identify him. hmm? But a clue of sorts, for those who like numbers..

The first Enoch and Lamech would've perished in the Deluge, don't you agree?
The second Enoch (7th generation) and Lamech (9th) generation both 'died' prior to Noah's Flood.

Noah was 'perfect' in his generation(s), Gen 6:9. He was tenth and then another ten to Abraham, and then another ten to Boaz. The three tens a 'type' of the 3x14 in Matthew. See the last verse of Ruth for the ten generations from Pharez to David, but omitting (skipping) the names of Isaac, Jacob, and Judah.

David was generation#33, and then another 33 to Jesus#66 when you note the FINAL FOUR in Matthew 1:16 is Jacob, Joseph, Mary, Jesus -- that SECOND JACOB is #63! Confirming IMO that the 66 Generations and 66 Books of the Bible are agreeing with Isaiah 66 and Lamentations 3:66.

Because 7x9=63, and there are only two (2) 'Jacob father of Joseph' in the Bible!

p.s. the name Jacob means supplanter 'take the place of' .. (ICING ON THE CAKE!) :bcake:

duxrow
08-23-2014, 05:55 AM
Some may have noticed the two (2) Enoch's and two (2) Lamech's in the Genesis opening; the first two in the line of Cain and the next two in the line of Seth. The Book of Jude calls attention to "Enoch, the 7th from Adam", departing from the usual Scripture practice of naming the guys father to identify him. hmm? But a clue of sorts, for those who like numbers..

The first Enoch and Lamech would've perished in the Deluge, don't you agree?
The second Enoch (7th generation) and Lamech (9th) generation both 'died' prior to Noah's Flood.

Noah was 'perfect' in his generation(s), Gen 6:9. He was tenth and then another ten to Abraham, and then another ten to Boaz. The three tens a 'type' of the 3x14 in Matthew. See the last verse of Ruth for the ten generations from Pharez to David, but omitting (skipping) the names of Isaac, Jacob, and Judah.

David was generation#33, and then another 33 to Jesus#66 when you note the FINAL FOUR in Matthew 1:16 is Jacob, Joseph, Mary, Jesus -- that SECOND JACOB is #63! Confirming IMO that the 66 Generations and 66 Books of the Bible are agreeing with Isaiah 66 and Lamentations 3:66.

Because 7x9=63, and there are only two (2) 'Jacob father of Joseph' in the Bible! Now 1Cor1:25 concerning the "foolishness of God" takes on added meaning.. you think? :bricks:

duxrow
08-26-2014, 10:08 AM
:prof: The OT generations go father-to-son continuously, but there's no gender difference in the NT (Galatians 3:28), so the final four are Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus! :grouphug5:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2014, 06:53 PM
:prof: The OT generations go father-to-son continuously, but there's no gender difference in the NT (Galatians 3:28), so the final four are Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus! :grouphug5:
That verse is talking only about equality of people in relation to the idea of being "in Christ." It says nothing about there being no "gender difference." This is obvious because the same verse also says there are no slaves, but history proves there have been plenty of Christians who were slaves. Their chains did not fall off merely because they were "in Christ" (unless you are talking about their "spiritual slavery" but that only proves my point that the Bible still recognizes gender amongst believers). E.g. women are not allowed to teach, talk in church, etc. The Bible clearly teaches sexism.

And the genealogies are self-contradictory so we can't believe them anyway. You and I have discussed this in depth. Luke inserts an extra generation that ruins your pattern. You have to deny that Luke's genealogy is true if you want your pattern to stand.