Thursday, July 9, 2009

Genealogies in the bible.

ExPatMatt brings up some good questions about genealogies in the bible. The purpose of the genealogies was not chronologically. The quickest, fastest summary I have found that proves this point can be found here.

1. Abridgement and omission of unimportant names is the pattern in the genealogies of the Bible. There are numerous examples of this observation. One prime example is the omissions in the genealogies of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 1:8 Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), Joash (2 Kings 7:1), and Amaziah (2 Kings 23:34; 1 Chronicles 3:16) are dropped between Joram and Ozias (or Uzziah). In Matthew 1:1 the entire genealogy of Jesus is summed up in two steps, "Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham."


The genealogies seem to be more concerned with only the names of important people and NOT relaying a strict chronological timeline.

The genealogy in Exodus 6:16-25 makes Moses the great-grandson of Levi though 430 years intervened (Exodus 12:40). It is, therefore, evident that many names have been omitted from Moses' genealogy.


If one were to take the genealogies 'literal' then Moses would be a 430 year old great grandson.

3. "Father," "Son," and "begot" were used in a broad sense. Several Biblical passages contain ancestral titles used in a broad sense. We know from earlier discussion that several names have been omitted in Matthew 1:8 after Joram. Therefore, Joram was actually the great-great grandfather of Uzziah. It is obvious that the "father" used in verse 8 between Joram and Uzziah means "ancestor" instead of its conventional meaning. In 1 Chronicles 1:36 the Hebrew text includes seven names after "the sons of Eliphaz," making it appear that all the seven named are sons. Actually one of the names, Timna, was that of a concubine, not a son. Only the New International Version translates clearly that Timna was Eliphaz's concubine, as recorded also in Genesis 36:11-12, and the other six are sons.

Matthew 1:1 reads, "Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham." "Son" here obviously means descendant. Therefore, the biblical writers and translators seem to use the words "father" and "son" freely to mean "ancestor" or "descendant", and sometimes the persons are not closely related.

The regular formula in the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 10 is "A lived _ years and begat B, and A lived after he begat B _ years and begat sons and daughters. And B lived _ years and begat C...." (KJV). The Hebrew word "begat" is sometimes used for succeeding generations. Zilpah is said to have "born to" Jacob her great-grandchildren (Genesis 46:18 NIV) and Bilhah her grandchildren (Genesis 46:25). Canaan is recorded to have begotten whole nations (Genesis 10: 15-18).

Furthermore, if the dates are true, Adam was contemporary with every generation until the Flood, except Noah. Methuselah died in the year of the Flood. Shem survived Abraham for 35 years; Salah 3 years; and Eber, 64 years. For 58 years Noah was the contemporary of Abraham, and Shem actually survived Abraham for 35 years. Such conclusions are contrary to the spirit of the record that presupposed a much longer gap between Noah and Abraham.


Here we have the source of what usually causes confusion in reading the bible, the language difference. In Gen 5 and 11 they both use the word begat to link one generation to the next. In Ex 6:20 and Num 26:59, this same word links Amram and his wife Jochebed to Moses even though there are many generations in between them. These verses quite clearly show that the word beget can be validly used in the way that is shown above, the word for beget is the hebrew word "yalad." The translations for yalad are as follows:

1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail

a) (Qal)

1) to bear, bring forth

a) of child birth

b) of distress (simile)

c) of wicked (behaviour)

2) to beget

b) (Niphal) to be born

c) (Piel)

1) to cause or help to bring forth

2) to assist or tend as a midwife

3) midwife (participle)

d) (Pual) to be born

e) (Hiphil)

1) to beget (a child)

2) to bear (fig. - of wicked bringing forth iniquity)

f) (Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)

g) (Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree)


It is also very important to note that flutes assertion found here:

So you don't need to interpret the earth's age YEC-style. You just need to count the years in the chronologies backwards, then BINGO!

is an ignorant one, since the genealogies only go up to Adam, but according to the old earth view, the earth was created billions of years before Adam was created, thus using the genealogies to interpret the earths age is a YEC interpretation.

I would also like to note that I am not in anyway shape or form trying to assert that one view is more correct than the other view, but that both views are adequately supported by biblical evidence and instead of arguing which one is right and which one is wrong, Christians need to understand that doing so is pointless. In retrospect I see that this post is extremely relevant here.

1 Timothy 1:3-7

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm


Pauls words seem extremely relevant in this situation, as old earth/young earth interpretations of these genealogies are causing disputers rather than Godly edification.

Update: Flute makes an irrelevant point.

You were the one who brought up YEC. I was saying you don't need that to calculate the date of the flood.
I want to make this clear; I was not talking about the age of the Earth. I was talking about the date of the mythical flood.


I was certainly incorrect saying that flute was talking about the age of the earth, however he still has no point since the genealogies cannot be used for chronological purposes so it can't even be used to date the flood!

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Christianity and insults and mocking.

It is quite ironic how Christians maintain that insulting people and mocking them is not Christian at all, when Jesus our Lord and Savior engaged in both insults and mocking people.

Matthew 19:4

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,


Jesus asks the Pharisees a seemingly innocent question "Have you not read?," but a deeper look into the historical context shows this to be quite a sarcastic mocking question. For someone to become a Pharisee they had to memorize the first 5 books of the bible! so it was obvious that they had read it, they had studied it, memorized it, they had read it tons of times. Jesus was sarcastically mocking the Pharisees here.

Matthew 23:33

33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?


Jesus is calling them Serpents and brood of vipers!

There is a difference of course, between the type of mocking and insults Christ is using and the type of mocking and insults that are commonly used today, an article I found on Tektonics sums up Christianity insults and mocking quite nicely.

Many ancient societies (and we shall see below, certain modern social groups) engage in a process known as challenge-riposte. The scene of such processes is public venues in which two persons or groups have competing honor claims: "...the game of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played out in public." [42] The purpose is for each party to try to undermine the honor, or social status, of the other in an exchange that "answers in equal measures or ups the ante (and thereby challenges in return)."

In the Gospels, Jesus "evidences considerable skill at riposte and thereby reveals himself to be an honorable and authoritative prophet." Many of these challenges are clear, but some are so hidden to us that they need exposition.


There is a difference between the type of satire and mocking used in challenge-riposte and simply insulting people for the sake of pride or to get back at someone who insulted you first. I particularly like the following parts (which I broke up into separate sections) of the article as it is quite analogous to fighting.

There are certain people who has no desire whatever to discuss the truth-claims of the Christian faith. His sole goal, so it seems to me, is quite simply to ridicule Christianity and Christians .... There is no kindness in his approach, and he seems to show none of the 'caution' standard in careful inquiry and exposition.



Everyone now and then (more often than not it seems) in a gym you will encounter someone that is 'outwardly' seeking to join the gym and learn to fight, but inwardly they are just seeking to prove to themselves or their crew (they usually try to bring their friends along) that they're tougher and stronger and better than these 'wussy trained fighters.' They have no intent to learn, they have no intent of bettering themselves as a person or a fighter, their only intent is to appease their own ego and pride.


What to do with such a one? If you play the nice guy, you're likely to get swarmed, not by any irrefutable arguments, but rather, by a veritable skyscraper of excess and inflammatory verbiage. And unfortunately, there are those, on both sides of the argument, who are persuaded by such things. We are humans, not computers, and a show of confidence or arrogance does, to some, seem to equate with being the victor.


Continuing from the example above, that person(henceforth named "the bum") goes through the same process that everyone else goes through, they have to spar with one of the top 3 fighters in the gym. Now what is the fighter to do against the bum? quite analogous to the above article, if the fighter plays nice with the bum, he will get swarmed, not by any actually effective fighting technique but simply because the fighter is playing nice, coddling the bum, not trying to hurt the bum, but this runs the risk of undermining the gym, the fighters own skill, and even worse promotes the bums own fighting style, ego and pride as superior to the gym and one of the 3 top fighters.


So what does the Christian apologist, in dealing with such as these, do? He fights a spark with a blow torch. Just as, when climbing a mountain, even though the goal is to reach the top as quickly as possible, and therefore, so it would seem, only moving upward in a straight line is the most conducive activity for achieving this end, we often find that it is actually more expedient to, at certain moments, to go to the left or right (for instance, when there is a boulder or stream immediately in front of us); so too, the Christian apologist, out of the love for Love, is at certain times warranted in using sarcasm and satire.


What should the fighter do in dealing with these bums? he must beat them, soundly, not to appease and lift his own ego and pride, but to simply show that his fighting style, his way, his tao, is superior while bums fighting style is the inferior one, his fighting style is closet to the truth, the bums fighting style is not. Just as the article states the Christian uses sarcasm and satire out of love for Love, rather than loving his own ego and pride, the fighter delivers each punishing blow to the face, not to selfishly justify his selfish desires, but out of love for his gym, his coach, and the tried and true effectiveness of the fighting style.

That is why when someone genuinely wants to learn about Christianity(or anything for that matter) I do not insult or sarcastically mock them, I do not treat them like the people that "simply seek to ridicule Christianity and Christians," I try(my best) to do what I can to help them learn. Similarly when it comes to the gym, when someone genuinely wants to learn how to fight, the top 3 boxers do hit them with 100% strength, they do not go all out on them, they do not treat them like a bum, but rather gently(yes, in fighting there is a gentleness) test their current level of fighting while helping them learn.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

It will be stupid.

I am calling it, the GI Joe movie will be stupid, the CGI will be corny, the plot and story will follow suit. I am predicting it will be along the lines of Wolverine or Resident evil 2. Marlyn Waynes? Joseph Gordon-Levitt as COBRA COMMANDER? give me a break.

Friday, June 26, 2009

The music not the person.

I never liked Michael Jackson as a person, but his music is a whole different story. This man made classic after classic, from Beat it, to Bad, to Billy Jean and many more, the following of which will always be my favorite.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

God the Father.

Vagon, in his latest failed attempt to prove this argument falls victim to reductio ad absurdem brings up a very common misconception about Allah and God. I stated in the conclusion of my argument the following;

The demand for scientific evidence of God is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for God is actually evidence of His existence.


Vagon, asserts my argument is a victim to reductio ad absurdum by asserting the following;

"The demand for scientific evidence of Allah, praise be to him, is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for Allah, praise be to him, is actually evidence of his existence."


In actuality, my argument does not fall victim to reductio ad absurdum, but rather Vagon falls victim to a common misconception about Allah, which leads me to my initial point.

Abraham had 2 children, Issac and Ishmael. Issac is considered the ancestor of the Jewish people.

Sarah bore Abraham a son, Isaac (in Hebrew, Yitzchak), a name derived from the word "laughter," expressing Abraham's joy at having a son in his old age. (Gen 17-18). Isaac was the ancestor of the Jewish people.


While Ishmael is considered the ancestor of the Arabs.

Both Jewish and Islamic traditions consider Ishmael as the ancestor of northern Arab people


This ancestry is significant because both Jews and Arabs beleive and worship the same God as their father Abraham.

Arabs:

According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews [see Qur'an 29:46]. The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham". Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites.[9] According to Encyclopedia Britannica (see also the following section for comparison between God's love in Islam and Christianity)


While the Jews and Christians obviously maintain that they worship the same God as their Abraham, due to their entire religion being based upon the Torah while the Christians entire religion is based upon the bible. Thus while there are differences and disagreements between the 3 groups, there is no doubt that each group worships the same God, the biggest difference and disagreement among the three religions is Jesus is. It is quite a common misconception(made by Christians and skeptics alike) that Allah is not the same God as Jehovah or God the Father. The main point being that when skeptics appeal to Allah in ways similar to Vagon, they are falling victim to a common misconception.

Counter punches: BUT TD!!! IF MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE SAME GOD YOU DO THEN THEY GET TO GO TO HEAVEN WITHOUT JESUS RIGHT?!???!!!
Not only is this beside the point, it is outstandingly incorrect, Jews worship the same God we do as well, but they like Muslims must accept Jesus as their Savior as well.

BUT TD!!! HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH VERSION IS RIGHT??!!!! THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SAME GOD?! LOL!! YOU HAVE A ONE AND THREE CHANCE OF GETTING IT RIGHT LOL!!! HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE?!?!!!!
Also beside the point of this thread, but it is a great question and is one that is too complex to cover here and must be saved for a later post. As it stands, this argument has been going on for centuries, and as I said, the main difference and disagreement between the three is who Jesus is(which, in a very poetic sense, suggests what the truth is).

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

New rule.

11. Comments are limited to the topic and scope of the thread. Any digression will follow with a warning, and continuing with the digression will result in having all posts that digress from the original topic and scope of the thread deleted.

2 days to comply.

Update of rule #3 and rule #5

3. You will be addressed how you addressed others. Expect the typical smug atheist I know it all attitude to be met with a smug Christian/agnostic/etc. I know it all type attitude, reverse applies as well. An apology will 'reset' someones status and give him a clean slate. If poster X starts name calling and having a smug I know it all attitude, as per the rules he will be treated as he treats others, if he apologizes he will be given a clean slate and treated as if he never name called or had a smug I know it all attitude at all.

5. Link arguing or plagiarizing is not permitted here. Link arguing is when someone asks you to back up your assertion and you simply give them a link or a title of a book and that's it. Plagiarizing is simply copying something from a source without citing the source. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.

2 days to comply.