It could very well mean 2 hours in some other context. From a software engineering standpoint, designers are doing a very bad job of it if 6 to 7 could mean 2. Could cause a lot of headache during testing/debugging. Being a software engineer, I'm sure you see that. Anyway, the point is, you're taking it out of context. The wording you provided, namely from ... to ..., clearly and unambiguously (at least to me and the other person you were talking to before) specifies the rest. But this should really be dropped, unless you can actually dig out the passages in question.

Why do I even waste my time with you?

The point is Ultima, they have their context, they can read discrete numbers any so which way they want. You bringing up hours and o'clocks does not make you right, I hope you understand that your point was weak, and that a lot of points that contradict the bible are similarly very weak. If you are serious about any of this try theology it is actually very deep a science and goes WAY beyond the surface of what most skeptics tend to consider valid arguments.

1) No, it doesn't. The list still specifies Joseph. Then it says, son of Heli. Where do you get Mary from?

2) Your conclusion that Mary had descended from David is based on an earlier assumption that the lineage is indeed Mary's. In other words, this is circular reasoning.

Calm down.

I very much understand. You are arguing over a technicality, a 2000 year old fencepost error. And anyone can twist the phrasing to make the Bible wrong or right.

The issue here is the religious approach, the same thing that makes all creationist theory pseudoscience. If you go into the argument with an agenda, you will ignore everything that disagrees with your point of view.

I've read theological works, trust me. I find this mass belief in the utterly unreasonable and impossible quite fascinating. Don't make any assumptions.

And if you think the  point is weak, fine, I proposed multiple times that we drop it, because it doesn't matter, as you don't even know which passage you're arguing over. Jesus... And if you say that a lot of points that contradict the bible are weak, then you're just assembling a strawman.

No, you still don't understand. People study contexts and interpretation for a living, it's they job, it is their science. They analysis are not arbitrary, and they do comparative studies and linguistics analysis, as well as doctrinal analyses. Their results are not arbitrary and I can tell you that you still have no knowledge of the value of science behind religious studies.

That's because you're biased. I've seen it before, and when I read "The issue here is the religious approach, the same thing that makes all creationist theory pseudoscience.", I know I'm talking with someone who has no knowledge or contact with theology whatsoever.

My sister studied theology for more than 3 years she is now doing a masters, and she is a very smart girl, barely christian but she is smart. I can tell you that she puts in a LOT of work in what she does. That you bag it all up into one big lump with troll terms such as "creationist theory pseudoscience" goes to show that you truly know nothing about the topic at hand.

He got Mary from the greek term tou, by omission. I had bolded it for you you should have read it:

"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."

2) On top of that, I hope you understand that Joseph can't have two biological fathers.

So tell us the, what is the value of "science" behind religious study? How is it inherently more important than, say, history?

Theology is the study of religion, creationism is the absurd idea that humans were intelligently designed by some creator. Don't insult theology by clumping theologists with creationists.

He has a point about creationist theory pseudoscience, and it's a point you encountered earlier in this thread. Creationist "scientists" go in with the agenda of backing up their biblical stories, then pick out scientific facts that they see as being consistent while ignored other facts that clearly show their theory to be at the very least fundamentally flawed.

I adressed that... I told you that every bible version that I looked at unanimously agreed that there wasn't such a notion present. Once again, Mary is not mentioned. At all.

2) Why not? After all, Jesus had no biological father at all. Perhaps he lent his right to a biological father to Joseph, so he could have two.

But no, all joking aside, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

@bold. Facepalm I didn't, your friend in skepticism Osc did. Regardless I respect creationists for what they do so I wouldn't care if they were considered to a comparable level of discipline each in their own field. But when someone is bundling the words pseudoscience when talking about religious studies, you know you have a boso on your hands.

@1. Religious studies makes use of history, for example, to explain ideas found in religious texts that may seem contradictory. Whether it has life implications to you or not doesn't change the fact that it is a very complex and in-depth multi-disciplinary study that really resembles detective work. It requires knowledge of linguistics, history, archaelogy, and many other disciplines in order to find answers to theological questions.