The 33/66 Pattern

[duxrow]

:sBo_reflection2: Leviticus contains 'the law for her that hath born a male or a female' – precept for being 'born again'?
"And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled". Lev12:4

"But if she births a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation, and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days". Lev 12:5

Translation: For a boy it was 33, but for a girl it was 66. We want purifying to go to heaven, and the blood of Jesus is required. "The Jew first, and then the Gentile" is from Romans 1:16 and 2:9,10. The Jews were a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ: Gal 3:24.

'For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope'. Rom15:4

Like 'barren' Rachel and the Old Covenant came first, but were followed by fruitful Leah and the New Covenant.
King David lived about 1,000 B.C., smack in the middle of the Old Covenant, and was the 33rd generation from Adam.
Jesus was the 66th generation, like the number of books in the Bible—THE WORD. :sCh_christian:

[HeIsLord]

My interpretation would be this:

The context of the numbers 33 and 66 is Leviticus chapter 12.

Leviticus is the 3rd book
Text is the 12th chapter

The number 3 means "God", and 12 means "Ruler". So the theme of the chapter is "God's Ruler".

The number 33 is 3 x 11. 3 means "God" and 11 means "Hidden".
The number 66 is 3 x 22. 3 means "God" and 22 means "Revealed" or "Light".

Now, David came 33 years after Adam. He was "God's Ruler", the King of the Jews. David was annointed, but God was kept "Hidden", especially because of David's many sins.
Jesus Christ came 66 years after Adam. He was "God's Ruler", the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Except, Jesus was God incarnate, God "Revealed", the "Light of the world". He did not sin.

So, the meaning of 33 and 66 has nothing to do with being born again, it has everything to do with who is "God's Ruler".

Hope these thoughts bless you.

My system of spiritual numbers is presented in www.biblenumbersforlife.com

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My interpretation would be this:

The context of the numbers 33 and 66 is Leviticus chapter 12.

Leviticus is the 3rd book
Text is the 12th chapter

The number 3 means "God", and 12 means "Ruler". So the theme of the chapter is "God's Ruler".

The number 33 is 3 x 11. 3 means "God" and 11 means "Hidden".
The number 66 is 3 x 22. 3 means "God" and 22 means "Revealed" or "Light".

Now, David came 33 years after Adam. He was "God's Ruler", the King of the Jews. David was annointed, but God was kept "Hidden", especially because of David's many sins.
Jesus Christ came 66 years after Adam. He was "God's Ruler", the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Except, Jesus was God incarnate, God "Revealed", the "Light of the world". He did not sin.

So, the meaning of 33 and 66 has nothing to do with being born again, it has everything to do with who is "God's Ruler".

Hope these thoughts bless you.

My system of spiritual numbers is presented in www.biblenumbersforlife.com (http://www.biblenumbersforlife.com)
I understand how you could make those associations, but there are many other meanings associated with those numbers. I have never felt confident to give a single meaning to a number. They are not used that consistently in Scripture. Case in point: Does the 12th chapter of every book exemplify the meaning of "ruler"? And what about the more profound meaning of the number 12 as exemplified by the meaning of the 12th Hebrew letter Lamed, to learn/teach? This coheres quite nicely with Christ teaching in the Temple at age 12. See my article here (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Lamed_Master.asp).

And as for 3 meaning "God" - what about the Number 1? If any number is the "Number of God" it must be that one. See my article Aleph - the Symbol of God, Origins, and First Things (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_Origins.asp).

In the Bible, I have found that the Number 3 is much more strongly correlated with the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the idea of Abundant Giving (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Gimel_Spirit.asp). Click the link for the article.

And how did you derive the meaning of the numbers 29 and 41?

Great chatting,

Richard

[duxrow]

My interpretation would be this:

The context of the numbers 33 and 66 is Leviticus chapter 12.
Leviticus is the 3rd book
Text is the 12th chapter

The number 3 means "God", and 12 means "Ruler". So the theme of the chapter is "God's Ruler".
The number 33 is 3 x 11. 3 means "God" and 11 means "Hidden".
The number 66 is 3 x 22. 3 means "God" and 22 means "Revealed" or "Light".

Now, David came 33 years after Adam. He was "God's Ruler", the King of the Jews. David was annointed, but God was kept "Hidden", especially because of David's many sins.
Not years: GENERATIONS

Jesus Christ came 66 years after Adam.
Generations! He was "God's Ruler", the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Except, Jesus was God incarnate, God "Revealed", the "Light of the world". He did not sin.

So, the meaning of 33 and 66 has nothing to do with being born again, it has everything to do with who is "God's Ruler".

Hope these thoughts bless you.
That's fine;Nevertheless, the purification of the woman required a specific agenda, with NUMBERS that are similar to the children of Leah, and those of Rachel, which went down into Egypt with Jacob.

My system of spiritual numbers is presented in www.biblenumbersforlife.com

:)Yep, I've read it, and even left comment there for you. Think we're on the same team -- just diff positions. Chow, baby! :playball:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Jesus was the 66th generation, like the number of books in the Bible—THE WORD. :sCh_christian:
But he wasn't really the 66th generation. Luke lists 77 generations from Adam to Christ. How are we supposed to understand that?

[duxrow]

But he wasn't really the 66th generation. Luke lists 77 generations from Adam to Christ. How are we supposed to understand that?

:yo: Luke lists the pedigree of Mary's husband, showing he was of the line of David (thru Nathan). There's a father-son pair, v.27 I think, Salathiel to Zorobabel, that is not the same as the pair in Matthew.

Matthew is pedigree of Jesus, but not counting the 19 generations prior to Abraham, and leaving out five names from the Solomon column of 3x14. Mary didn't have a brother -- her Daddy's name was Joseph! Like in the story of Zelophehad, Numbers 26 & 36.

The first Ten Generations in Gen5, are followed by ten more which end with Abraham, and the THIRD TEN are at the close of the Book of Ruth. :break:

[duxrow]

More on the 33/66

http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm

Scroll down a bit to find a chart of His pedigree, showing how Enoch and Lamech and the two Jacobs figure in the lineup.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:yo: Luke lists the pedigree of Mary's husband, showing he was of the line of David (thru Nathan). There's a father-son pair, v.27 I think, Salathiel to Zorobabel, that is not the same as the pair in Matthew.

Matthew is pedigree of Jesus, but not counting the 19 generations prior to Abraham, and leaving out five names from the Solomon column of 3x14. Mary didn't have a brother -- her Daddy's name was Joseph! Like in the story of Zelophehad, Numbers 26 & 36.

The first Ten Generations in Gen5, are followed by ten more which end with Abraham, and the THIRD TEN are at the close of the Book of Ruth. :break:
I found this page (http://custance.org/old/adamjesus.html) that says there were 21 generations to Abraham and then 13 more to David who is therefore the 34th generation from Adam. Here's the list:

ADAM (1)
SETH (2)
ENOS (3)
CAINAN (4)
MAHALEEL (5)
JARED (6)
ENOCH (7)
METHUSALEH (8)
LAMECH (9)
NOAH (10)
SHEM (11)
ARPHAXAD (12)
CAINAN (13)
SALA (14)
EBER (15)
PELEG (16)
RAGAU (17)
SARUCH (18)
NAHOR (19)
TERAH (20)
ABRAHAM (21)

The added name Cainan comes from Luke's genealogy which corresponds exactly with the genealogy from Adam to Abraham that you present except for that one name.

Any idea how to fix this?

[duxrow]

:rolleyes:Sure. The CAINAN#13 doesn't belong -- he got it from Lk3 (a copyist error is my guess) -- cause there are NOT two Cainan's in the pedigree, at least IAW Gen 11 and 1Chr. :confused2: ??

ps. Lu:3:36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Lu:3:37: Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, (This Cainan a no-show in the OT – probly copyist error from v.36)

[HeIsLord]

Correction taken to my first note. "Generations" not "Years".

Concerning spiritual meanings of numbers, God is not the author of confusion. My belief is all the number have specific meanings, however, there are sometimes a variety of implications of that meaning on the context, and levels of depths to the meaning. But not two widely different meanings to a given number.

I have subjected any proposed meaning of a spiritual number to five tests:

(1) Association of meaning in places where the number is quoted in the Scripture.
(2) Consistency of meaning with gematria (numerical values of Bible words and phrases)
(3) Agreement of meaning to the order of books in the Bible, the order of chapters in books, and the order of verses in chapters.
(4) Internal consistency of meaning. The meaning of a number should be related to the meaning of its numerical factors. (Example: 27=9×3. If 9 means 'Spirit' and 3 means 'Truth', then 9 x 3 should mean 'Spirit of Truth' or 'Spiritual Truth')
(5) Authority of written Scripture over all possible interpretation of Bible numbers.

Usually there is confirmation quickly. If there is doubt based on the tests, that is likely not the meaning.

Note: Really appreciate the discussion on 33 and 66. I will study the blog link presenting the genealogical lines.

HeIsLord

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:rolleyes:Sure. The CAINAN#13 doesn't belong -- he got it from Lk3 (a copyist error is my guess) -- cause there are NOT two Cainan's in the pedigree, at least IAW Gen 11 and 1Chr. :confused2: ??

ps. Lu:3:36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Lu:3:37: Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, (This Cainan a no-show in the OT – probly copyist error from v.36)
So your solution is to say that Luke is wrong. OK - I'm good with that. There are lots of errors in the Bible.

But your suggestion that there was a "copyist error" in Luke is not correct. Luke merely copied the LXX version of Genesis 10:24 which states:

LXX Genesis 10:24 And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala. And Sala begot Heber.

We have copies of the LXX that are older than any existing copy of the Masoretic text. So if there is a copyist error, it could have been in the MT. The bottom line is that no one knows, so the genealogies are unreliable.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Concerning spiritual meanings of numbers, God is not the author of confusion.

If God is not the author of confusion, then he's certainly not the author of the Bible! :lmbo:

I can't think of any book that has generated more confusion and disputation than the Bible. Even those who agree it is the inerrant and infallible Word of God strongly disagree about fundamental points such as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Take a look at the conversations we have been having with David M. He denies the Trinity, denies that unbelievers will suffer forever in hell, denies that angels can sin, and many other doctrines that are taught in traditional Christianity.



My belief is all the number have specific meanings, however, there are sometimes a variety of implications of that meaning on the context, and levels of depths to the meaning. But not two widely different meanings to a given number.

I have subjected any proposed meaning of a spiritual number to five tests:

(1) Association of meaning in places where the number is quoted in the Scripture.
(2) Consistency of meaning with gematria (numerical values of Bible words and phrases)
(3) Agreement of meaning to the order of books in the Bible, the order of chapters in books, and the order of verses in chapters.
(4) Internal consistency of meaning. The meaning of a number should be related to the meaning of its numerical factors. (Example: 27=9×3. If 9 means 'Spirit' and 3 means 'Truth', then 9 x 3 should mean 'Spirit of Truth' or 'Spiritual Truth')
(5) Authority of written Scripture over all possible interpretation of Bible numbers.

Usually there is confirmation quickly. If there is doubt based on the tests, that is likely not the meaning.

Note: Really appreciate the discussion on 33 and 66. I will study the blog link presenting the genealogical lines.

HeIsLord
Those are pretty good tests. That's probably why we have a lot of agreement on the meaning of some of the numbers. But there are others where we strongly differ. For example, you say that the number 13 means "rebellion." I understand your reasons, but the real meaning of that number is LOVE and UNITY. This first follows from the Hebrew gematria Ahavah = 13 = Echad and the name of YHVH = 26 = 2 x 13 and the phrase from the Shema (Deut 6:4) "The Lord is one" = YHVH EChD = 39 = 3 x 13 (One) which echoes the Trinity (3 in 1). And it is confirmed in the Unity Holograph (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Unity.asp) which shows that the Shema is built on nested multiples of 13, with the sum of the whole Shema being 1118 = 13 (One) x 86 (God). And then it is confirmed again in the 13 verses of the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians which is known as the "Love Chapter." I think the evidence for the primary meaning of the number 13 as Love and Unity is overwhelming.

Great chatting,

Richard

[HeIsLord]

If we can say "Jesus is the son of David",

then we can say "Uzziah is the son of Jehoram" (i.e. not mentioning the three descendants in between).

My point is the lists that appear in the Bible are ordered to emphasize a truth, not in every case to give the direct line of ALL descendants.

In Matthew we read 14 from Abraham to David, and 14 from David to the exile, and 14 to the Christ (Matt 1:17).

What is the significance of 14? It's mentioned three times.

My interpretation of the meaning of 14 is "Deliverance" or "Salvation".

Abraham was a sojourner in a foreign land. David delivered Israel.

The exiles were sojourners in Babylon. Christ brought salvation to believers (in Israel).

If we accept this argument, it doesn't matter that names are missing from the list in Matthew.

Hope this these thoughts are a blessing.

[HeIsLord]

There are 32,000+ verses in the Bible and countless words, each with a gematria.
We can't start at the gematria of words and work backward to meanings of the numbers.
We would get lost in all the possibilities.
My system starts with association of meaning of text where a number is mentioned, priority to first occurrence (which is usually Genesis).
Then the possible meanings are balanced off against the message of the Bible book with that number, chapters in Books, and verses in chapters.
The last step is to work upward to the gematria of words and phrases to see if the meanings make sense.

There are other tests, but it is too complex to begin to explain them. Total 7 tests in all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If we can say "Jesus is the son of David",

then we can say "Uzziah is the son of Jehoram" (i.e. not mentioning the three descendants in between).

My point is the lists that appear in the Bible are ordered to emphasize a truth, not in every case to give the direct line of ALL descendants.

In Matthew we read 14 from Abraham to David, and 14 from David to the exile, and 14 to the Christ (Matt 1:17).

What is the significance of 14? It's mentioned three times.

My interpretation of the meaning of 14 is "Deliverance" or "Salvation".

Abraham was a sojourner in a foreign land. David delivered Israel.

The exiles were sojourners in Babylon. Christ brought salvation to believers (in Israel).

If we accept this argument, it doesn't matter that names are missing from the list in Matthew.

Hope this these thoughts are a blessing.
I agree that the genealogy in Matthew was designed to convey an idea. Some scholars note that the Number 14 is the value of the name David, who is used as the terminus of the first group of 14. But there also is some insight from the structure of the Bible. Spoke 14 divides the pre-exilic books from the post-exilic books. I am refering to the Babylonian exile which is the terminus of the second group of 14 generations. The dividing line extends across all three Cycles of the Wheel:

345

Here's how it looks on the Wheel:

http://biblewheel.com/Canon/OT_Symmetry.gif

I discuss this in Part I, Chapter 6 of the Bible Wheel book. (Available online here (http://biblewheel.com/book/Chapters/Chapt06.asp)).

I would be interested to see your reasons for identifying the Number 14 as meaning "Deliverance or Salvation." I see it as representing the Levitical Priesthood, Inheritance, and the concept of Faith. See my article Jesus Christ - High Priest of the Everlasting Faith (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Nun_Priest.asp).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There are 32,000+ verses in the Bible and countless words, each with a gematria.
We can't start at the gematria of words and work backward to meanings of the numbers.
We would get lost in all the possibilities.
My system starts with association of meaning of text where a number is mentioned, priority to first occurrence (which is usually Genesis).
Then the possible meanings are balanced off against the message of the Bible book with that number, chapters in Books, and verses in chapters.
The last step is to work upward to the gematria of words and phrases to see if the meanings make sense.

There are other tests, but it is too complex to begin to explain them. Total 7 tests in all.
I think it would be good to test your tests. We could do this by discussing some of the smaller numbers (they are easier) about which we differ. I gave the example of the Number 13. Another example is the Number 18 which I see as having the primary meaning of "righteousness" (tzedaqah) whereas you think it is "bondage" (because of Luke 13:16, I presume).

A primary resource in my studies has been the Alphabetic Verses like Psalm 119. If we look at the Alphabetic KeyWords used in those verses, we can see the meaning of the letter, and the corresponding number. Case in point: The 18th letter is Tzaddi, and the KeyWords used for those verses are frequently Tzaddiq (Righteous One). This then manifests in the structure of the Wheel where we see Matthew (which has a unique emphasis upon righteousness) on Spoke 18.

[duxrow]

So your solution is to say that Luke is wrong. OK - I'm good with that. There are lots of errors in the Bible.

But your suggestion that there was a "copyist error" in Luke is not correct. Luke merely copied the LXX version of Genesis 10:24 which states:

LXX Genesis 10:24 And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala. And Sala begot Heber.

We have copies of the LXX that are older than any existing copy of the Masoretic text. So if there is a copyist error, it could have been in the MT. The bottom line is that no one knows, so the genealogies are unreliable.

No, not saying Luke wrong—will take your word about LXX, but like I said, the KJV doesn’t have a Cainan in Gen10:24 – maybe you object to the cryptogram?:rolleyes:

WHATEVER: proof of pudding is in the eating, so why argue against 33 generations for David and 66 for Jesus? Makes good sense, to me, since he’s THE WORD made flesh, as well as the Incorruptible SEED that’s been planted here on Planet Earth. The 3 and 30 mighty men of David fits as well. Morgan wrote concerning the 666 that a single six is number of man, double is Jesus, and triple is man making himself to be God. (the gist as I recall).

And since Mark has joined in here, I’ll add about the 39+27 being a type of '3, 3-squared, and 3-cubed'. A pattern kinda like faith hope charity?.

Ram, you keep saying 'unreliable', but my gut says it’s the most challenging and provocative book ever written and like the axe that needs sharpening (Ecc10:10) continues to bless many believers even in these end times, and even though many have different opinions about the meaning. After 3 yrs. with the apostles, He said they had more to learn. John16:21 :mmph:

[duxrow]

If we can say "Jesus is the son of David",

then we can say "Uzziah is the son of Jehoram" (i.e. not mentioning the three descendants in between).
My point is the lists that appear in the Bible are ordered to emphasize a truth, not in every case to give the direct line of ALL descendants.
In Matthew we read 14 from Abraham to David, and 14 from David to the exile, and 14 to the Christ (Matt 1:17).

What is the significance of 14? It's mentioned three times.
My interpretation of the meaning of 14 is "Deliverance" or "Salvation".

Abraham was a sojourner in a foreign land. David delivered Israel.
The exiles were sojourners in Babylon. Christ brought salvation to believers (in Israel).

If we accept this argument, it doesn't matter that names are missing from the list in Matthew.
I think it matters, and is a challenge to our study of the Word.
Hope this these thoughts are a blessing.

:yo: Concur about the same seed being passed down: from son to grandson to great-grandson, etc.
In Ps110 David wrote: "the LORD said unto my Lord", and in Mt22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Mt22:45: If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Short answer: So WE can be called "Sons of God" - :specool:
http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/davidson.htm

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, not saying Luke wrong—will take your word about LXX, but like I said, the KJV doesn’t have a Cainan in Gen10:24 – maybe you object to the cryptogram?:rolleyes:

Good morning dux! :yo:

Luke lists 21 generations from Adam to Abraham, so how is it that you are not saying that Luke is wrong?

You don't need to "take my word about the LXX" - it is very easy to confirm for yourself. Luke followed the genealogy given in Gen 10:24 as presented in the LXX. This seems significant since many of the NT quotes that contradict the MT are from the LXX. So why do you accept some of them as valid and others as invalid? For example, do you accept this verse as true?

KJV Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

The highlighted words are from Deuteronomy 32:43 as given in the LXX. It does not exist in the MT. So either the book of Hebrews is wrong or the LXX preserved the original and the MT is wrong. Which do you think is wrong?



WHATEVER: proof of pudding is in the eating, so why argue against 33 generations for David and 66 for Jesus? Makes good sense, to me, since he’s THE WORD made flesh, as well as the Incorruptible SEED that’s been planted here on Planet Earth. The 3 and 30 mighty men of David fits as well. Morgan wrote concerning the 666 that a single six is number of man, double is Jesus, and triple is man making himself to be God. (the gist as I recall).

I am only applying the standard tests for truth. Luke says that there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. If this were the pattern you were looking for, would you accept Luke over the MT? Please think carefully about this.



And since Mark has joined in here, I’ll add about the 39+27 being a type of '3, 3-squared, and 3-cubed'. A pattern kinda like faith hope charity?.

I can see that, and I agree that there is a "hint" of a pattern there but it doesn't feel very substantial to me.



Ram, you keep saying 'unreliable', but my gut says it’s the most challenging and provocative book ever written and like the axe that needs sharpening (Ecc10:10) continues to bless many believers even in these end times, and even though many have different opinions about the meaning. After 3 yrs. with the apostles, He said they had more to learn. John16:21 :mmph:
Oh don't get me wrong. We all have plenty to learn. And I agree it an extremely "challenging and provocative book." I was fascinated with its patterns for well over a decade. But one of the reasons it is so "challenging and provocative" is that it is taken as the "Word of God" even though it contains much that directly contradicts that idea.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

WHATEVER: proof of pudding is in the eating, so why argue against 33 generations for David and 66 for Jesus? Makes good sense, to me, since he’s THE WORD made flesh, as well as the Incorruptible SEED that’s been planted here on Planet Earth.
Hey there dux :tea:

The problem I have with the genealogies is that they are quite unreliable and confused. You have to manipulate the data to make it fit your pattern. That's why it doesn't seem like it's real.

Here are the facts that make it look unreliable:

1) Luke contradicts your pattern when he says there are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.

2) Matthew contradicts your pattern when he says that Jospeh was Mary's "aner" (man/husband), whereas you say that Joseph was really Mary's father. This point alone makes the pattern very suspect since no translator agrees with your interpretation.

3) You include "Assir" as a son of Jechoniah whereas 9 out of the 15 translations of that verse listed on this page (http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/3-17.htm) don't agree that it is a name at all, but translate it as "prisoner" or "captive."

4) You omit Pedaiah who is explicitly stated to have been the father of Zerubabbel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 which contradicts the other texts that say he was the son of Salathiel. Believers have suggested various ways to harmonize this contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerubbabel#Son_of_Shealtiel_or_Pedaiah) by speculating about a possible Levirate marriage or that the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household." There is no way for us to know the true solution. It could just be another error like Luke's inclusion of Cainan.

Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors, and the genealogies are the least reliable of all. I don't see how anyone could have any confidence that there is a real pattern in the genealogies since you had to manipulate the data too much to get the pattern and your pattern directly contradicts the conclusions of many biblical scholars as well as the plain text of Scripture. If you have any regard for the Bible as the true "Word of God" how can you think that he would encode a message in such an uncertain, contradictory, and confusing way? Could any serious scholar have any confidence that the pattern is really there if it requires so much manipulation to make it appear? I think not.

Remember, we are supposed to be engaged in a search for truth, not a game of force-fitting patterns that "confirm" some preconceived idea.

Great chatting!

Richard

[duxrow]

Hey there dux :tea:

The problem I have with the genealogies is that they are quite unreliable and confused. You have to manipulate the data to make it fit your pattern. That's why it doesn't seem like it's real.

Here are the facts that make it look unreliable:

1) Luke contradicts your pattern when he says there are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.
Really? You need to get more sleep, I think.

2) Matthew contradicts your pattern when he says that Jospeh was Mary's "aner" (man/husband), whereas you say that Joseph was really Mary's father. This point alone makes the pattern very suspect since no translator agrees with your interpretation.
We've discussed this before--about 'gavra' or Gbra from the Peshitta not meaning husband either..

3) You include "Assir" as a son of Jechoniah whereas 9 out of the 15 translations of that verse listed on this page (http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/3-17.htm) don't agree that it is a name at all, but translate it as "prisoner" or "captive."

4) You omit Pedaiah who is explicitly stated to have been the father of Zerubabbel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 which contradicts the other texts that say he was the son of Salathiel.
That's a red herring for sure -- I count 3 by that name, allowing for spelling

.5). speculating about a possible Levirate marriage or that the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household." There is no way for us to know the true solution. It could just be another error like Luke's inclusion of Cainan.

Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors, and the genealogies are the least reliable of all. I don't see how anyone could have any confidence that there is a real pattern in the genealogies since you had to manipulate the data too much to get the pattern and your pattern directly contradicts the conclusions of many biblical scholars as well as the plain text of Scripture. If you have any regard for the Bible as the true "Word of God" how can you think that he would encode a message in such an uncertain, contradictory, and confusing way? Could any serious scholar have any confidence that the pattern is really there if it requires so much manipulation to make it appear? I think not.

Remember, we are supposed to be engaged in a search for truth, not a game of force-fitting patterns that "confirm" some preconceived idea.

Great chatting!

Richard

:confused: Seems to me you're searching for a WAY OUT, and have found it. As for me, I believe it's the Truth that only the Holy Spirit can convince you of, and I've found it! EUREKA! :clap2:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:confused: Seems to me you're searching for a WAY OUT, and have found it. As for me, I believe it's the Truth that only the Holy Spirit can convince you of, and I've found it! EUREKA! :clap2:
Why would I want a "way out"? I still accept the evidence of the Bible Wheel even though I reject the Bible as the Word of God. If you had evidence that supported your pattern I would believe it with no hesitation. You are the one who is looking for a reason to reject the obvious truth that your genealogy contradicts the Bible.

Your answer only confirms that you have no regard for "truth" at all. If you applied such logic to any real endeavor, such as rocket science, your rocket would crash in the ocean.

This is what blows my mind about people who claim they have found "truth" even as they violate the universal principles that define truth. Your logic is simply fallacious. Why are you so attached to something that cannot be proven and which has so many logical problems?

Look at what you have done. You had to manipulate the data on FOUR points. Each of those points could have gone the other way. This means that the genealogy given in the Bible could have anywhere from 64 to 68 generations.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

1) Luke contradicts your pattern when he says there are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.
Really? You need to get more sleep, I think.

That's not an answer. You reject the fact that Luke says there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. You have said nothing to justify your rejection of that text. And oddly, you said that "Luke is not wrong" even as you say that Luke IS wrong! That doesn't make any sense at all.




2) Matthew contradicts your pattern when he says that Jospeh was Mary's "aner" (man/husband), whereas you say that Joseph was really Mary's father. This point alone makes the pattern very suspect since no translator agrees with your interpretation.

We've discussed this before--about 'gavra' or Gbra from the Peshitta not meaning husband either..

That's right - we discussed it. And you chose to go with your interpretation which contradicts every copy of the Greek NT in existence.

You can't deny that this makes your genealogy suspect.



3) You include "Assir" as a son of Jechoniah whereas 9 out of the 15 translations of that verse listed on this page (http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/3-17.htm) don't agree that it is a name at all, but translate it as "prisoner" or "captive."



Are you going to answer this point?




4) You omit Pedaiah who is explicitly stated to have been the father of Zerubabbel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 which contradicts the other texts that say he was the son of Salathiel.
That's a red herring for sure -- I count 3 by that name, allowing for spelling



There is no "red herring" there at all. It is a contradiction that believers have been trying to solve for centuries. Any solution is speculative and uncertain, so the same must be said of your genealogy.

[Charisma]

Hello All,

I've read the thread so far, and have picked up several points on which to comment.

From p1

So, the meaning of 33 and 66 has nothing to do with being born again, it has everything to do with who is "God's Ruler".Hi HeIsLord,

There is something in Hebrew which permits opposites to be expressed by certain words. Richard can, I'm sure, find examples for us. Because of this, I suggest you're putting too much emphasis on the one side of possible interpretations, while in Hebrew thought, the writer/reader would have been using context to determine the bias of emphasis/meaning, frequently.

Thus, God's Ruler is absolutely fine, but is not necessarily in contradiction to other possible meanings. For instance, unless we are born again, we are not under God's Rulership. God's Ruler implies there is something/someone to be ruled over. See what I mean?



Hi dux,

In the next post I'll paste a link to the finer details of how a baby's blood group is determined. I looked it up after finding the comment on your website, because I've been hearing the myth you propounded:
Modern medicine knows that the baby’s blood is determined by the father.online, so many times, I've lost count. And, it has never been the truth; more, it precedes 'modern medicine' by a good several decades.


Concur about the same seed being passed down: from son to grandson to great-grandson, etc.This is also a myth, because while the Y chromosome may be passed from generation to generation, the X which goes with it in a normal male, always came from the child's mother. In other words, if a Y sperm fertilises an X ovum, the X sperm from the father did not fertilise the ovum. Maybe you knew this? I mention it because even if the Y is the same in brothers of the same father, the X in each brother may be different. So, when you say 'the same seed', that's not possible.

Which is why the status of the parent-child becomes (more) important (than the biological descent). (And yes, we're back to adoption. :winking0001:)



To Richard, greetings;


I am only applying the standard tests for truth. Luke says that there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. If this were the pattern you were looking for, would you accept Luke over the MT? Please think carefully about this. This is an excellent question, and I thank you for it.

One thing I wonder about (you'll remember) is whether Eve fits into the count at all, as a generation all on her own? I realise that later she became one flesh with Adam and together they bore fruit, but, what kind of difference would it make if all the numbers were 1 greater?


it is taken as the "Word of God" even though it contains much that directly contradicts that idea. It struck that by the same measure you put to dux, it is valid to ask if you (personally) were to accept the Bible's definition of God, whether you would still think the text contradicts 'that idea'? You have your own idea of what God is like, and while the Bible presents Him differently, you feel free to reject the words attributed to him.

Isn't this logic just as dodgy as dux's?




:yes:

[Charisma]

The answer follows the following question, found here:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00338.htm


I was wondering where the blood comes from when a baby is conceived. I have heard that the bloodline only comes from the father, and that if the mother's blood gets into the umbilical cord when the baby is still attached, that both the mother and the baby could die. I was just wondering if that was true?...'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First of all, the baby makes its own blood. Once the baby begins to grow, it forms its own bones, skin, hair, etc. and also begins making blood. The blood type (ie, A, B, AB, or O) is determined by both parents. Type A and Type B are both dominant, which means that if they are there, they will show up. Type O blood is recessive, which means that both parents have to give the baby an O type gene for it to have type O blood. If the baby gets and O gene from one parent and a B gene from the other, it will have type B blood and the O is "hidden". If one gives a B and the other an A the baby will be type AB. Anyway, no blood passes through the umbilical cord. Only nutrients and oxygen are small enough to pass through the filters in the cord.

However, during birth, the placenta detaches from the womb and some bleeding occurs. Only at this time can blood from the BABY get into the mother's blood stream. If the baby has a different blood type than the mother, she will make antibodies to the baby's blood. So there is usually no problem during the first pregnancy. NEXT time she gets pregnant, if the baby is a different blood type than the mother, the antibodies that she made during the first birth can cross the umbilical cord into the baby (because they are small enough) and hurt the baby. But there are shots that can be given during the first birth that can "suck up" all the baby's blood cells so that the mother does not make antibodies to them. The only time something could happen to the first baby is if the placenta detaches partially and some bleeding is going on, but not enough to cause miscarriage. This is rare.

vanhoeck

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello All,

I've read the thread so far, and have picked up several points on which to comment.

Hey there Charisma, :tea:

I'm glad you joined the conversation. It's been a while since you and I have talked. You bring up some excellent points.



From p1
Hi HeIsLord,

There is something in Hebrew which permits opposites to be expressed by certain words. Richard can, I'm sure, find examples for us. Because of this, I suggest you're putting too much emphasis on the one side of possible interpretations, while in Hebrew thought, the writer/reader would have been using context to determine the bias of emphasis/meaning, frequently.

Thus, God's Ruler is absolutely fine, but is not necessarily in contradiction to other possible meanings. For instance, unless we are born again, we are not under God's Rulership. God's Ruler implies there is something/someone to be ruled over. See what I mean?

An obvious example is when Job's wife tells him to "curse God, and die" (Job 2:9). The word translated as "curse" is barak which is almost always translated as "bless." Most translations have it this way, but Young's Literal Translation has "bless God, and die." But that wouldn't make any sense, would it? Blessing God would not cause someone to die.

Personally, I see no reason we should assume that the "theme" of Leviticus 12 is "Gods' Ruler" based on the fact that it is book 3, chapter 12. On the contrary, the theme of that passage is entirely centered on the concept of uncleanness caused by childbirth. The attempt to force this to fit the pattern of "God's Ruler" makes no sense to me at all.



Hi dux,

In the next post I'll paste a link to the finer details of how a baby's blood group is determined. I looked it up after finding the comment on your website, because I've been hearing the myth you propounded: online, so many times, I've lost count. And, it has never been the truth; more, it precedes 'modern medicine' by a good several decades.

This is also a myth, because while the Y chromosome may be passed from generation to generation, the X which goes with it in a normal male, always came from the child's mother. In other words, if a Y sperm fertilises an X ovum, the X sperm from the father did not fertilise the ovum. Maybe you knew this? I mention it because even if the Y is the same in brothers of the same father, the X in each brother may be different. So, when you say 'the same seed', that's not possible.

That's great! I love debunking false ideas - especially when they have been spewed all over the internet.



To Richard, greetings;

I am only applying the standard tests for truth. Luke says that there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. If this were the pattern you were looking for, would you accept Luke over the MT? Please think carefully about this.
This is an excellent question, and I thank you for it.

Glad you appreciate it! I think it is the most important question because there are so few "standards" used in Bible study folks tend to forget when they are just making things up or picking and choosing the bits and pieces that fit their preconceived ideas.



One thing I wonder about (you'll remember) is whether Eve fits into the count at all, as a generation all on her own? I realise that later she became one flesh with Adam and together they bore fruit, but, what kind of difference would it make if all the numbers were 1 greater?

I can't see how that could work. Eve was not "begotten" by Adam - he was not her "father."




it is taken as the "Word of God" even though it contains much that directly contradicts that idea.
It struck that by the same measure you put to dux, it is valid to ask if you (personally) were to accept the Bible's definition of God, whether you would still think the text contradicts 'that idea'? You have your own idea of what God is like, and while the Bible presents Him differently, you feel free to reject the words attributed to him.

Isn't this logic just as dodgy as dux's?

The Bible doesn't present a single unified and coherent picture of "God." That's the problem. It presents very different versions of God, from the very anthropomorphic Bronze age tribal war God who gets angry, changes his mind, and doesn't know everything, to the abstract God of the philosophers who is "Pure Being" and "Eternal" and "Unchanging" and "Omniscient."

But even if I accepted the traditional definition of the "God of the Bible" (whatever that might be) I would still think that the text contradicts that idea since the actions attributed to him, such as his sanctioning the capture of 32,000 virgins after killing everyone else, are fundamentally immoral.

So no, I do not think my logic is "dodgy" in any way at all. But I certainly am open to being corrected if you can show that I am deceiving myself.

Thanks for the very interesting comments, and the "challenge" to my point of view.

Great chatting!

Richard

[duxrow]

That's not an answer. You reject the fact that Luke says there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. You have said nothing to justify your rejection of that text. And oddly, you said that "Luke is not wrong" even as you say that Luke IS wrong! That doesn't make any sense at all.
Did not say Luke was wrong; neither the man nor the book. Guessed Copyist error.

That's right - we discussed it. And you chose to go with your interpretation which contradicts every copy of the Greek NT in existence.

You can't deny that this makes your genealogy suspect.
Never said it wasn't, but solution for me,..

Are you going to answer this point?
OK. I begin in Genesis and follow up with 1Chr1:24, and Abraham comes up #20. So when Luke adds that extra(?) Cainan, I have to sleep on it a bunch. The pattern 3x14 in Matthew bears similarity to the 3x10 of the OT, and also compares with the double 19+14. I'm beginning to think you aren't paying attention--hence the charge "sleepy".

There is no "red herring" there at all. It is a contradiction that believers have been trying to solve for centuries. Any solution is speculative and uncertain, so the same must be said of your genealogy.

I've know for years about "Assir" being the captive, according to NIV, but am still going for his birth in Babylon; admittedly because of the need for seeing the line of Solomon and the 66 generations, and because it agrees with the Triple-Acrostic pattern.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Did not say Luke was wrong; neither the man nor the book. Guessed Copyist error.

So you are saying that the words written in the book of Luke are wrong. That's what I meant. You have no way to know if it was the writer of Luke's gospel or a copyist, so that point is moot.




You can't deny that this makes your genealogy suspect.
Never said it wasn't, but solution for me,..

Why are you so attached to a pattern that is so uncertain?



OK. I begin in Genesis and follow up with 1Chr1:24, and Abraham comes up #20. So when Luke adds that extra(?) Cainan, I have to sleep on it a bunch. The pattern 3x14 in Matthew bears similarity to the 3x10 of the OT, and also compares with the double 19+14. I'm beginning to think you aren't paying attention--hence the charge "sleepy".
I have written a detailed analysis of your pattern and you claim I'm not "paying attention?" :doh:

The fact that there is a "similarity to the 3x10 of the OT" does not solve the problem that I pointed out.

You seem to be the sleepy one.



I've know for years about "Assir" being the captive, according to NIV, but am still going for his birth in Babylon; admittedly because of the need for seeing the line of Solomon and the 66 generations, and because it agrees with the Triple-Acrostic pattern.
It's not just "according to the NIV." Is is according to 9 out of 15 of the major translations. That's 60%. It's not definitive, so you could be right. But you are in the minority opinion, and so we have another reason to see your pattern as suspect.

And if Assir was a person, why doesn't the Bible state that he had any children? You inserted him into the genealogy to make your pattern work. No serious student of Scripture would find the pattern convincing because it has too many uncertainties. You had to manipulate the data to make your pattern. I don't understand why you can't see this. I worked on patterns in the Bible for over a decade and I NEVER NEVER NEVER would let myself manipulate data because I knew that would corrupt my work.

[Charisma]

2 Samuel 12:24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.

Solomon was Bathsheba's second son with David, (The first died.) not the fifth, yet Solomon appears at the end of the list of Bathsheba's children in 1 Chronicles 3:5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel: {Shimea: or, Shammua} {Bathshua: or, Bathsheba} {Ammiel: or, Eliam}

Maybe it was easier to remember in that order, and, the scribe goes on to list Solomon's sons, straight after.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there duxrow,

Here's an important question. You reject Cainan in Luke's genealogy as probably a copyist error even though it is found in every Greek copy of Luke that we have. Likewise, you reject Matthew's statement that Joseph was the husband of Mary even though it too is found in every Greek copy of Matthew.

Don't you see this as a problem? It seems you simply reject what the Bible says when it doesn't fit the pattern you are looking for. To me, this undermines not only your pattern, but the Bible itself as untrustworthy. If your conclusions are true, what else did the Greek NT get wrong? How can we trust it at all?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The problems with the genealogies are legion. For example, different Greek texts of Luke differ radically:

NKJ Luke 3:33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
NAS Luke 3:33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
CJB Luke 3:33 of Amminadav, of Admin, of Arni, of Hetzron, of Peretz, of Y'hudah,

Who is "Admin"? Who is "Arni"?

And look at what this page (http://www.textexcavation.com/genealogyjesus.html) says:



Both Matthew and Luke have a weak link at Zerubbabel. Although each names a different son of Zerubbabel as continuing the line, neither son mentioned is listed in 1 Chronicles 3.19-20 as belonging to Zerubbabel (Masoretic and LXX). ... neither Abiud (according to Matthew) nor Rhesa (according to Luke) make the list. Fitzmyer, page 500, on Rhesa:
The suggestion has been made that this name is actually a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic title rēšā’, "prince," and that it should be taken with the former name, "Prince Joanan, son of Zerubbabel," referring to Hananiah, the son of Zerubbabel in 1 Chr 3:19. According to Plummer (Commentary, 104), "some Jewish copyist" of the pre-Lucan list would have mistaken it for a proper name.... This is, however, highly speculative, and the formation of the list, as it now stands in the Lucan text, is against it.

Focusing genealogies leads to nothing but endless debate, confusion, speculation, and uncertainty. I think this is probably why the Bible warns against it:

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

[duxrow]

:deadhorse: The 66 Genealogy – horse meat, anyone?
1. The 3x10 of the OT has symmetry with the 3x14 of the NT.
2. The 19 names prior to Abraham agree with adding 5 names to the Solomon column in Matthew.
3. The 33 and 66 agree with the acrostic eleven style; like Ps119 and Lamentations.
4. The no-sons account of Zelophehad in Numb26 agrees w Mary’s situation.
5. The requirement for girls to marry into their own tribe agrees with Numb 36.
6. The multiple Joseph’s in Luke3 fit the profile of Mary’s husband.
7. Three names are ‘skipped’ in Ruth’s Ten, and 3 names are ‘skipped’ in Matthew, right at the 39/27 junction.
8. The two father-son pair of 'Jacob to Joseph' both appear in Matthew: worthy of our attention.
9. Also, the two father-son pair of 'Salathiel to Zorobabel' -- did we notice?
10. None are etched in granite – maybe only in jello?

The glory of God is to conceal a matter – the honor of kings is to search it out.. Prov25:2
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men".1Cor1:25 :sos:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:deadhorse: The 66 Genealogy – horse meat, anyone?
1. The 3x10 of the OT has symmetry with the 3x14 of the NT.
2. The 19 names prior to Abraham agree with adding 5 names to the Solomon column in Matthew.
3. The 33 and 66 agree with the acrostic eleven style; like Ps119 and Lamentations.
4. The no-sons account of Zelophehad in Numb26 agrees w Mary’s situation.
5. The requirement for girls to marry into their own tribe agrees with Numb 36.
6. The multiple Joseph’s in Luke3 fit the profile of Mary’s husband.
7. Three names are ‘skipped’ in Ruth’s Ten, and 3 names are ‘skipped’ in Matthew, right at the 39/27 junction.
8. The two father-son pair of 'Jacob to Joseph' both appear in Matthew: worthy of our attention.
9. Also, the two father-son pair of 'Salathiel to Zorobabel' -- did we notice?
10. None are etched in granite – maybe only in jello?

The glory of God is to conceal a matter – the honor of kings is to search it out.. Prov25:2
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men".1Cor1:25 :sos:
OK - you made your case very well. I will answer your points if you would like to continue, or we can just let it rest.

Peace!

:hippie: