By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - A Muslim writes about Jesus - Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?

ultima on 29 July 2013
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

So you're saying from father to son there are 2 generations?

Can I have the passage so I can read and process it myself?

I don't have a passage, that's according to my understanding of boundaries. Like in programming, you can loop while i < n or loop while i <= n. The boundaries are crucial in my field, and so I see no issue it being inclusive in one instance and exclusive in another, but that's in my modern interpretation. Wait till we see your sources as to how THEY interpreted it. We'll both have a laugh.

I really don't see that being the case from the wording you guys provided. From 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock is one hour. From father to son is one generation. There is no other way to look at it. That's why I asked for a passage. If you don't have a passage, what are you arguing over?



           

Around the Network
happydolphin on 29 July 2013
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

So you're saying from father to son there are 2 generations?

Can I have the passage so I can read and process it myself?

I don't have a passage, that's according to my understanding of boundaries. Like in programming, you can loop while i < n or loop while i <= n. The boundaries are crucial in my field, and so I see no issue it being inclusive in one instance and exclusive in another, but that's in my modern interpretation. Wait till we see your sources as to how THEY interpreted it. We'll both have a laugh.

I really don't see that being the case from the wording you guys provided. From 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock is one hour. From father to son is one generation. There is no other way to look at it. That's why I asked for a passage. If you don't have a passage, what are you arguing over?

Like I said, to me, from 6 to 7 o'clock could be read as inclusively or exclusively. It's a question of semantics. I don't know what passage he was referring to, and like I mentioned before if we're talking purely about intervals, I have no problem reading generations from person A to person B as including all persons including endpoints, even father and son, LET ALONE how the audience of those books in those contexts would read them.

I'm sorry but this is an argument you will never win in a scientific setting. You know, the study of religion (theology).



ultima on 29 July 2013
happydolphin said:
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

Here, I'll make it easier for you:

According to Luke:

Joseph,

the son of Heli,

According to Matthew:

 

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

If nothing else, the lengths of the two lists are significantly different.

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:

not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to (Matthew 1:16), but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi . . . till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, . . . which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews, that “the family of the mother is not called a family.”1

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?

Read bold.

I did. Are you really going to tell me that every single bible translation that I've come across (English Standard, King James, 21st Century King James, American Standard, New International, New English) is wrong? Because, like I said, they all unambiguously agree through wording.



           

ultima on 29 July 2013
happydolphin said:
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

Here, I'll make it easier for you:

According to Luke:

Joseph,

the son of Heli,

According to Matthew:

 

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

If nothing else, the lengths of the two lists are significantly different.

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:

not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to (Matthew 1:16), but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi . . . till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, . . . which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews, that “the family of the mother is not called a family.”1

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?

Read bold. (Edit: sorry, I missed bolding the last item, important in answering your question)

At italicized: read my bold.



           

Osc89 on 29 July 2013
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

So you're saying from father to son there are 2 generations?

Can I have the passage so I can read and process it myself?

I don't have a passage, that's according to my understanding of boundaries. Like in programming, you can loop while i < n or loop while i <= n. The boundaries are crucial in my field, and so I see no issue it being inclusive in one instance and exclusive in another, but that's in my modern interpretation. Wait till we see your sources as to how THEY interpreted it. We'll both have a laugh.

I really don't see that being the case from the wording you guys provided. From 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock is one hour. From father to son is one generation. There is no other way to look at it. That's why I asked for a passage. If you don't have a passage, what are you arguing over?


Don't bother. This is religion you are talking about here. If the Bible says there are 2 hours from 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock, then that is how many hours there are.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Around the Network
ultima on 29 July 2013
happydolphin said:
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

So you're saying from father to son there are 2 generations?

Can I have the passage so I can read and process it myself?

I don't have a passage, that's according to my understanding of boundaries. Like in programming, you can loop while i < n or loop while i <= n. The boundaries are crucial in my field, and so I see no issue it being inclusive in one instance and exclusive in another, but that's in my modern interpretation. Wait till we see your sources as to how THEY interpreted it. We'll both have a laugh.

I really don't see that being the case from the wording you guys provided. From 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock is one hour. From father to son is one generation. There is no other way to look at it. That's why I asked for a passage. If you don't have a passage, what are you arguing over?

Like I said, to me, from 6 to 7 o'clock could be read as inclusively or exclusively. It's a question of semantics. I don't know what passage he was referring to, and like I mentioned before if we're talking purely about intervals, I have no problem reading generations from person A to person B as including all persons including endpoints, even father and son, LET ALONE how the audience of those books in those contexts would read them.

I'm sorry but this is an argument you will never win in a scientific setting. You know, the study of religion (theology).

If you can interpret "from 6 to 7" to mean 2 hours, then there's something seriously wrong with your arithmetic. Also, the wording, "from father to son" clearly means one generation. You'd have a case if it were "father and son" maybe.

So there's really no passage? This semantics argument was pointless?

@bold: what is that supposed to mean? And I would not call theology science. Theology is somewhere between humanities and philosophy, neither of which are sciences by the common use.



           

happydolphin on 29 July 2013
Osc89 said:

Don't bother. This is religion you are talking about here. If the Bible says there are 2 hours from 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock, then that is how many hours there are.

No, YOU don't understand. It's all about intended audience. If he used the example of time, it's because time can't be colloquially understood as being 6-7 = 2 hours. That's the context. So his example is bad, and yes had I been in the setting of software testing, it could very well mean 2 hours. Being a QA tester, I can tell you that that kind of thing happens all the time.

Listen bud, you are free to have your agenda, but don't start trolling religion just because you don't have the insight to understand that things have different meanings in different contexts written to different audiences in times that are not our own.



ultima on 29 July 2013
Osc89 said:
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

So you're saying from father to son there are 2 generations?

Can I have the passage so I can read and process it myself?

I don't have a passage, that's according to my understanding of boundaries. Like in programming, you can loop while i < n or loop while i <= n. The boundaries are crucial in my field, and so I see no issue it being inclusive in one instance and exclusive in another, but that's in my modern interpretation. Wait till we see your sources as to how THEY interpreted it. We'll both have a laugh.

I really don't see that being the case from the wording you guys provided. From 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock is one hour. From father to son is one generation. There is no other way to look at it. That's why I asked for a passage. If you don't have a passage, what are you arguing over?


Don't bother. This is religion you are talking about here. If the Bible says there are 2 hours from 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock, then that is how many hours there are.

LOL! XD



           

happydolphin on 29 July 2013
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

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?

Read bold. (Edit: sorry, I missed bolding the last item, important in answering your question)

At italicized: read my bold.

Now you're starting to piss me right off. There is no mention of Mary, but she is suddenly very important in this context because:

1) She gave birth to a child as a virgin. That becomes extremely important in giving lineage.

2) She is part of a non-cursed lineage (as I had bolded), of which the messiah had to descend in order to hold the throne forever.



happydolphin on 29 July 2013
ultima said:
Osc89 said:

Don't bother. This is religion you are talking about here. If the Bible says there are 2 hours from 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock, then that is how many hours there are.

LOL! XD

Read my reply.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5551902

Do you guys expect religious people to consider skeptics more intelligent when you behave like little children?