> Fill in the blank. Again, just in round figures, how many years
> from Jesus back to Abraham? Yeah, you Bible scholars know again
> the figure's right at 2000 years. If you're looking for actual
> figures it's around 1954 or thereabouts. But, for round figure
> purposes, about 2000 years. But again, that's a matter of secular
> history. There isn't anybody I know that denies that. That has
> been documented archaeologically and historically over and over
> again. It's just a matter of record.
It is? Perhaps the good doctor could flesh out this point a little. The
last time I checked, archaeology could not even demonstrate that Abraham
was an historical personage, much less tell us when he lived. It sure as
hell is not "a matter of secular history".
> Folks, if you'll look in Luke chapter 3, you'll find one of those
> genealogies. I want you to fill in this circle for me. How many
> generations are covered in Luke's genealogy from Jesus to Abraham?
> I'll fill it for you and you can count them if you want when you
> get home. The number is 55 generations - 55. Now I saw some of
> you out there mouthing the words 42. You were thinking about
> Matthew's genealogy. In Matthew's genealogy there are only 42
> generations given. Someone says, 'Wait a minute, aren't those the
> same genealogies'? In essence yes. 'Why the difference? Is there
> a contradiction'? Oh, no, no no. It' not a contradiction. You
> see you've got two different kinds of genealogies under discussion
> here. Matthew's is what we call an abbreviated genealogy. We
> don't know why he did it. The Holy Spirit directed Matthew for some
> reason to leave some of the names out. Matthew gave three groups
> of fourteen. Some have suggested it was a memory crutch to his
> readers. We don't know if that's right or not. All we know is
> this; it didn't do any damage because all of his readers had access
> to the Old Testament which gave the whole genealogy. So, by
> leaving something out, he wasn't doing any damage. Luke didn't
> leave anything out. Luke, in fact, gives you all of them and
> that's why the number is larger - 55 generations.
This is a hoot. It seems that Mr Thompson failed to mention the fact that
the genealogies diverge wildy after David, and that there are actually only
thirteen generations in the last set (go ahead - count em. Apparently,
arithmetic was not Matthew's strong point). We do indeed have access to the
Old Testament chronology, but it doesn't help the inerrantist position any.
It is still impossible to combine the two lists into one, and comparing
with the Old Testament only makes the matter worse. At least Mr. Thompson
did not try to insult our intelligence by claiming that Luke actually meant
to write Mary when he wrote Joseph in 3:23.
-Curt
http://www.primenet.com/~heuvelc/bible/intro.htm