happydolphin said:
They are two different chronologies. Joseph is the son of Jacob, the son in law of Heli. "John Gill, a great Bible scholar, stated in his commentary that “Joseph, the son of Heli” meant:
Renowned Greek scholar A.T. Robertson points out that Luke employs the definite article toubefore each name, except Joseph’s.2 This seems to indicate that a better translation would be “Jesus being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli” with the understanding that Jesus was the grandson of Heli through Mary. Although the descendants of Jeconiah were unable to physically sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:24–30), Jesus was able to fulfill the prophecies that David’s throne would be established forever (Jeremiah 33:17) through his mother Mary (genetic descendant of David through Nathan—a non-cursed line)." Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/chronology-conundrums |
Read the words. I went back and looked at different translations. They all unambiguously agree (through wording) that it's a chain of sons to fathers. There is absolutely no mention of Mary in Luke's passage. Having read the bible, I also noticed that the females are never chronicled. So why would Mary all of a sudden become important in a culture like that?