By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 29 July 2013
Edit Thread
happydolphin said:
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

Holy hell. No such distinction is present in any of the versions I've seen. How do you explain that then, if your point is so clear that it's frustrating you? Did every single translator overlook this? Seems unlikely. Improbable. Dare I say, impossible?

Let's get this straight. The versions you read omitted Mary, am I right? They don't mention Mary?

Yes. I stated that a couple of times. No mention of Mary anywhere in that chapter, in fact.

Good, because that's also what I understood you to say. I then went on to say that the text (of Mary's lineage) makes use of the greek article Tou, which is used for all males but joseph. I never said the passage stated mary, but that by omitting the article Tou for Joseph, it made it clear that they were refering to Joseph as the Son in Law.

Get it now? *sobs*

No, I don't get it. And you don't get what I'm saying. If it's made clear that they are referring to Joseph as the son in law, why isn't this reflected in the translations? Why is this so hard to comprehend? Here, I'll give you an exerpt from the King James version, that actually clearly states the opposite of your claim:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, ...