*Alward: Matthew 1:17 (to Crea)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hi all!
----- Original Message -----
From: <JAlw@aol.com>
To: <errancy@infidels.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 1998 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: *Alward: Matthew 1:17 (to Crea)

JOE
<snip:  Dave notes that David marked the end and beginning of two sets, so why
shouldn't the same pattern hold for Jeconias.  He notes that inerrantists can
claim Matthew made an exception.  Dave then cites literature to back up his
claim--which I accept--that "apo" is inclusive of the first term.  Then he
says,

"This leads me to believe that Matthew miscounted in the second series. The
only other
 alternative (considering definition and usage elsewhere) seems to be Matthew
did not count Jeconias in the second set. Then we get three sets of 14, all
nice and pretty. As tempting as that is, and beneficial for my argument in
this case, I had to abandon it. Read and judge for yourself.
==============
Joe Alward

I think you lost me, Dave.  I don't see why you had to abandon the notion that
Matthew did not miscount and just made an exception.  All you seem to have
done above is repeat your evidence that apo was inclusive.  I don't see what
that proves in this case.  How does that rule out the exception?  Please
clarify.

DAVE
   I will try. In the first set (from Abraham to David) are 14 generations. In
the second set
(from David to the captivity) are 15 (since Jeconias would be included). In the
third set
(from the captivity to Jesus) are 14 (if you count Jeconias at the top of the
list). I could
just ignore Jeconias in the second set and count up unto Josias, then begin the
third set
with Jeconias and the problem would "vanish". However, if you want to split it
up into
three sets of 14 each that is fine with me. Let me know how it works.

JOE
Also, let me take this opportunity to ask about the different ways of
describing days and nights.  In my Three Days article I counted nights, then
days, instead of days, then nights.  You made many references to days and
nights in my article which you felt were in error; may I assume that all such
comments assumed that I was counting in the modern sense?  I think I will
leave the article as it is, except I will make it clearer than I did (I had
already put such a notice in the beginning) that I will count nights, then
days.  This is necessary, I think, in order to make it easier to count days
and nights as the Hebrews must have counted them when Matthew was writing.
Let me know  what you think.

DAVE
     Yes, I was reckoning in the modern sense. That is what most people will
think.
All apologists I have ever known and every christian I have ever known that
discuss
this topic always use the modern sense when discussing sunset Friday afternoon.
Friday night, for example, always follows Friday day, even when describing the
beginning of the Jewish sabbath.  This is just a suggestion, but if you are
going to
use that method make it known early in the essay so apologists that come upon
your site
won't have room to quibble. It is your site so do with it as you wish. I was
just trying
to offer some suggestions that will improve the essay. Take care,
Dave

• Previous message: *Alward: Matthew 1:17 (to Crea)
• Next message: *Alward: Matthew 1:17 (to Crea)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]