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:

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, ...

It doesn't state the opposite of what I claimed. "(As was supposed" means exactly that he's the in-law. For all other case the "(As was supposed)" is not there.

Again, read:

"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."

No, (as was supposed) means that Jesus wasn't actually the son of Joseph, but accepted as one. Read the King James passage I posted. It's clear, and it's in direct contradiction with your explanation. The quote "... Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, ..." clearly shows that Joseph was the son of Heli.