The Birth of Sons

[Rose]

Another extremely obvious example of biblical male bias is the almost exclusive listings and occurrences of male births. In Genesis 4, Eve gives birth to three sons, Cain, Able, and Seth; Genesis 5, continues with a long list of male descendants from Adam, ending with Noah begetting sons and daughters. The only children of Noah that are named are his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (whose wives remain nameless), and they were Noah’s only children to enter the Ark with him. The next stop in our male journey is the listing of the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth in Genesis 10; the list mentions five sons of Japheth, four sons of Ham, and five sons of Shem, it then goes on to list their grandsons. So far in the story there is a plethora of male offspring being listed, but no females – which begs the question - where did Noah’s great grandsons find wives in a world where all life had just been destroyed by the Flood?

Now, the omission of female offspring is understandable, if one views biblical history as being written by males, but not so realistic given the God inspired view most Christians hold to. The Bible tells us that God created male and female to be fruitful and multiply, and we know that females carry half of the DNA, so if Scripture is truly god inspired why does it only focus on the birth of sons leaving half the population excluded? The mother of Jesus was Mary, yet her genealogy in not listed because according to Jewish law only the father’s bloodline counted. That is why Joseph who was only the stepfather of Jesus and not of his true bloodline gets mentioned in both Matthew and Luke. Since Jesus had no earthly father how are we to know his true lineage?

Continuing on with the biblical record of male births, the next in line is Terah, the father of Abraham who is in the lineage of Noah’s son, Shem. Terah had three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Lot. Abraham married Sarah who was barren, until God blessed her with a son called Isaac at ninety years of age. Abraham also had another son by his maid-servant Hagar. Abrahams only son by Sarah, Isaac marries Rebecca who is barren until midlife when God blesses her with twin sons, Jacob, and Esau. Of the two sons of Isaac, Jacob ends up fathering twelve sons and one daughter from his two wives and two concubines. The one daughter, Dinah, born of Leah is unique; it is the one and only time in the entire Bible where the birth of a named daughter is recorded.

Gen. 30:21 And afterwards she bare a daughter, and called her name Dinah.


So far in the biblical narrative there has been an abundance of male offspring begotten, which is understandable given the importance of patriarchy in the genealogical record, the part that is unbelievable is that all the dominant figures in the lineage of Adam always happen to have sons, how convenient is that given it is only the male offspring that is of any importance. If one views the Bible from the standpoint of being an historical document composed by male authors, the bias in favor of the male is expected; it is only when Scripture is held to be the inspired word of god that its incredulity becomes apparent. The simple laws of reproduction tells us that the chances of giving birth to male offspring is equal to that of female offspring, consequently the Bible reveals it is neither neutral nor objective, but has a male agenda which is seen throughout its pages by defining from its inception the superior status of male offspring. After critiquing the evidence of males being disproportionally represented and favored, one has no choice but to conclude that either the Bible was written by men who believed women to be inferior and not worthy of mention, or it was inspired by a misogynistic god who created the female with an inherent lesser value than the male. Speaking from the perspective of a woman who knows her intellect to be equivalent to that of a man, I choose to believe the Bible was written by men who lived in a culture of male dominance and hegemony; hence the god they created would reflect their male mindset.


Rose

[duxrow]

:sBo_reflection2:
I get your point, Rose, and maybe understand your frustration. What you say is Bible truth.

However, just as our Surname is carried on by the male, so the genealogy trail is traced by the male -- when you come to the 3 sons of Noah, you have to decide which son leads on to Abraham. Then it's Abraham with two sons; the first was 'engineered' , and it's Isaac who leads the way to David.
Similarly, two of the sons of David are in contention for leading to Jesus, and not everyone agrees with it being Solomon, but the Kings of Judah are usually part of the trail. Then, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, it's Joseph, the father of Mary, in Mattew 1:16 that brings the genealogy count to exactly 66 -- just like the number of Books in The Word that Is God! :)

[CWH]

Another extremely obvious example of biblical male bias is the almost exclusive listings and occurrences of male births. In Genesis 4, Eve gives birth to three sons, Cain, Able, and Seth; Genesis 5, continues with a long list of male descendants from Adam, ending with Noah begetting sons and daughters. The only children of Noah that are named are his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (whose wives remain nameless), and they were Noah’s only children to enter the Ark with him. The next stop in our male journey is the listing of the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth in Genesis 10; the list mentions five sons of Japheth, four sons of Ham, and five sons of Shem, it then goes on to list their grandsons. So far in the story there is a plethora of male offspring being listed, but no females – which begs the question - where did Noah’s great grandsons find wives in a world where all life had just been destroyed by the Flood?

Now, the omission of female offspring is understandable, if one views biblical history as being written by males, but not so realistic given the God inspired view most Christians hold to. The Bible tells us that God created male and female to be fruitful and multiply, and we know that females carry half of the DNA, so if Scripture is truly god inspired why does it only focus on the birth of sons leaving half the population excluded? The mother of Jesus was Mary, yet her genealogy in not listed because according to Jewish law only the father’s bloodline counted. That is why Joseph who was only the stepfather of Jesus and not of his true bloodline gets mentioned in both Matthew and Luke. Since Jesus had no earthly father how are we to know his true lineage?

Continuing on with the biblical record of male births, the next in line is Terah, the father of Abraham who is in the lineage of Noah’s son, Shem. Terah had three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Lot. Abraham married Sarah who was barren, until God blessed her with a son called Isaac at ninety years of age. Abraham also had another son by his maid-servant Hagar. Abrahams only son by Sarah, Isaac marries Rebecca who is barren until midlife when God blesses her with twin sons, Jacob, and Esau. Of the two sons of Isaac, Jacob ends up fathering twelve sons and one daughter from his two wives and two concubines. The one daughter, Dinah, born of Leah is unique; it is the one and only time in the entire Bible where the birth of a named daughter is recorded.

Gen. 30:21 And afterwards she bare a daughter, and called her name Dinah.


So far in the biblical narrative there has been an abundance of male offspring begotten, which is understandable given the importance of patriarchy in the genealogical record, the part that is unbelievable is that all the dominant figures in the lineage of Adam always happen to have sons, how convenient is that given it is only the male offspring that is of any importance. If one views the Bible from the standpoint of being an historical document composed by male authors, the bias in favor of the male is expected; it is only when Scripture is held to be the inspired word of god that its incredulity becomes apparent. The simple laws of reproduction tells us that the chances of giving birth to male offspring is equal to that of female offspring, consequently the Bible reveals it is neither neutral nor objective, but has a male agenda which is seen throughout its pages by defining from its inception the superior status of male offspring. After critiquing the evidence of males being disproportionally represented and favored, one has no choice but to conclude that either the Bible was written by men who believed women to be inferior and not worthy of mention, or it was inspired by a misogynistic god who created the female with an inherent lesser value than the male. Speaking from the perspective of a woman who knows her intellect to be equivalent to that of a man, I choose to believe the Bible was written by men who lived in a culture of male dominance and hegemony; hence the god they created would reflect their male mindset.


Rose
Hope my answer doesn't turn you into a frenzy about male and female inequality. The descendants named after the sons has nothing to do with male bias. The answer is simple and lies with the X and Y chromosomes found only in males.
It is the male that determines if the fetus is male or female because only the male can produce X and Y sperms. The female do not determine the sex of the fetus because they only have the X chromosome, but they do play a role in determining 50% of the characteristic of the fetus.

Male X + Female X = Female XX
Male Y + Female X = Male XY

Since the sex of the fetus came from the father, it is correct that they named after the father rather than after the mother e.g. Mariam daughter of Joseph or Abraham son of Joseph. Unless the sex of the fetus came from the mother then it is correct to name after the mother such as Mariam daughter of Mary or Abraham son of Mary. Furthermore, Man(Adam) was directly created first before Woman(Eve) who was indirectly created from Man (Adam) by God. Thus by right, Eve should be named "Eve made of Adam". And since Adam was made first before Eve, He is the elder over Eve; the first "born". Such naming after the father is perhaps as a respect for Adam being the direct elder and the determinant of the sex of the fetus. Note that such naming after the father exists in most cultures which show the wisdom of the ancients perhaps with instruction from the wise God. Most cultures always pay respect to the eldest.

God Bless both Males and Females.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hope my answer doesn't turn you into a frenzy about male and female inequality. The descendants named after the sons has nothing to do with male bias. The answer is simple and lies with the X and Y chromosomes found only in males.
It is the male that determines if the fetus is male or female because only the male can produce X and Y sperms. The female do not determine the sex of the fetus because they only have the X chromosome, but they do play a role in determining 50% of the characteristic of the fetus.

Male X + Female X = Female XX
Male Y + Female X = Male XY

Since the sex of the fetus came from the father, it is correct that they named after the father rather than after the mother e.g. Mariam daughter of Joseph or Abraham son of Joseph. Unless the sex of the fetus came from the mother then it is correct to name after the mother such as Mariam daughter of Mary or Abraham son of Mary. Furthermore, Man(Adam) was directly created first before Woman(Eve) who was indirectly created from Man (Adam) by God. Thus by right, Eve should be named "Eve made of Adam". And since Adam was made first before Eve, He is the elder over Eve; the first "born". Such naming after the father is perhaps as a respect for Adam being the direct elder and the determinant of the sex of the fetus. Note that such naming after the father exists in most cultures which show the wisdom of the ancients perhaps with instruction from the wise God. Most cultures always pay respect to the eldest.

God Bless both Males and Females.:pray:
You missed the point of Rose's article. The fact that the male sperm determines the sex of the baby has nothing to do with anything Rose wrote. And your post ignores the Jewish tradition that says a person is Jewish if and only if the mother is Jewish (of if the person converted).

The point of Rose's post is that the birth of females is ignored in the Bible almost entirely. The only births that mattered were the births of males. The women are treated as secondary characters of little importance. This reveals a profound male bias in the Bible.

You said: "Since the sex of the fetus came from the father, it is correct that they named after the father rather than after the mother." Why is that? You gave no reason. And besides, the opposite is true. It's easy to know who the mother is, whereas the father could have been anybody. Therefore, the child should be named after the mother since that's the only person that can be identified with certainty. That's why the Jews say a Jew must be have a Jewish mother.

It would be interesting if you dealt with what Rose actually wrote.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

... just like the number of Books in The Word that Is God! :)
Did you just say that the Bible is God?

[Rose]

:sBo_reflection2:
I get your point, Rose, and maybe understand your frustration. What you say is Bible truth.

However, just as our Surname is carried on by the male, so the genealogy trail is traced by the male -- when you come to the 3 sons of Noah, you have to decide which son leads on to Abraham. Then it's Abraham with two sons; the first was 'engineered' , and it's Isaac who leads the way to David.
Similarly, two of the sons of David are in contention for leading to Jesus, and not everyone agrees with it being Solomon, but the Kings of Judah are usually part of the trail. Then, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, it's Joseph, the father of Mary, in Mattew 1:16 that brings the genealogy count to exactly 66 -- just like the number of Books in The Word that Is God! :)

Hi Bob,

It's highly unlikely that the genealogy in Matthew or Luke is of Mary.

1. Under Old Testament Jewish Law the lineage was always of the father.
2. In the Apocryphal books Mary's father is named Joachim.
3. It only through name "twisting" that people try and say Joseph was Mary's father instead of her husband.


Rose

[duxrow]

Did you just say that the Bible is God?
:deadhorse:
Hey Richard, Sounded that way, didn't it? Course it comes from John 1 and 1:14 where Jesus is the 'Word' who was 'made flesh' and dwelt among us (among John, James, Andrew, etc.)
But you already knew this and have rejected it for some reason I haven't fathomed -- 'cause it seems to enforce the Triple Acrostic Wheel -- IMO that is.

But Jesus is not ONLY the Word: he's also the Vine, the Bread, the Light, the Rock, the Son... and more. The Alpha and Omega, first and last like Genesis and Revelation, is a favorite of mine, along with the acrostics. And the way 39+27 lines up with 3, 3-squared, and 3-cubed -- with the 81 x 13 hidden in the product of 39x27 ! Talk about 'hidden leaven'!! :winking0071:

[duxrow]

Hi Bob,

It's highly unlikely that the genealogy in Matthew or Luke is of Mary.

1. Under Old Testament Jewish Law the lineage was always of the father.
2. In the Apocryphal books Mary's father is named Joachim.
3. It only through name "twisting" that people try and say Joseph was Mary's father instead of her husband.


Rose
:sEm_oops:
Not INSTEAD of her husband, Rose -- BOTH her husband And her father were named 'Joseph' !
It was father to son all the way until the Right Family came along which had NO son--just a daughter named Mary! You ought to be thrilled. Think on it...:D

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:deadhorse:
Hey Richard, Sounded that way, didn't it? Course it comes from John 1 and 1:14 where Jesus is the 'Word' who was 'made flesh' and dwelt among us (among John, James, Andrew, etc.)
But you already knew this and have rejected it for some reason I haven't fathomed -- 'cause it seems to enforce the Triple Acrostic Wheel -- IMO that is.

But Jesus is not ONLY the Word: he's also the Vine, the Bread, the Light, the Rock, the Son... and more. The Alpha and Omega, first and last like Genesis and Revelation, is a favorite of mine, along with the acrostics. And the way 39+27 lines up with 3, 3-squared, and 3-cubed -- with the 81 x 13 hidden in the product of 39x27 ! Talk about 'hidden leaven'!! :winking0071:
When I wrote the Bible Wheel book, I frequently referred to Christ as the "Living Word of God" and the Bible as the "Written Word of God." There are many strong parallels between the two. We talked about this years ago in a thread called Analogies between the Living and the Written Word (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?25-Analogies-between-the-Living-and-the-Written-Word). I thought it was very significant, which is why it was one of our first threads which I started a few days after opening this forum.

The title of Christ as the Alpha and Omega coheres quite beautifully with the alphabetic structure of the Wheel which "seals" the Bible from Aleph to Tav.

The Bible Wheel remains the best evidence I have ever seen for accepting the Bible as a whole as designed by God. Your argument concerning the 66 generations requires too much manipulation and has too many problems to be convincing to me.

I agree there is something intriguing about the numbers 39 and 27 and their relation to powers of three. But that feels more like a "hint" - I don't see anything solid I can derive from it. I can see that 39 x 27 = 81 x 13 = 1053, but what does that have to do with leaven?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:sEm_oops:
Not INSTEAD of her husband, Rose -- BOTH her husband And her father were named 'Joseph' !
It was father to son all the way until the Right Family came along which had NO son--just a daughter named Mary! You ought to be thrilled. Think on it...:D

But there is a problem. The text says this:

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband (aner) of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband (aner), being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

You are saying that there are two different Joseph's who were each the "aner" of Mary. The word "aner" is never used in reference to a woman's father. And here it is used twice in reference to Joseph as Mary's husband within the space of three verses. How can you say that the first "Joseph" refers to her father and the second to her husband?

[duxrow]

When I wrote the Bible Wheel book, I frequently referred to Christ as the "Living Word of God" and the Bible as the "Written Word of God." There are many strong parallels between the two. We talked about this years ago in a thread called Analogies between the Living and the Written Word (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?25-Analogies-between-the-Living-and-the-Written-Word). I thought it was very significant, which is why it was one of our first threads which I started a few days after opening this forum.

The title of Christ as the Alpha and Omega coheres quite beautifully with the alphabetic structure of the Wheel which "seals" the Bible from Aleph to Tav.

The Bible Wheel remains the best evidence I have ever seen for accepting the Bible as a whole as designed by God. Your argument concerning the 66 generations requires too much manipulation and has too many problems to be convincing to me.


Not really. Just 'cause the NIV decided to omit the 'Assir', and just 'cause it throws in extra Zerubbabel's (the correct one is at Ezra 3:2), shouldn't keep us from pursuing the logic of the "trail from Adam to Jesus" inherent in the Toledoth's.

I agree there is something intriguing about the numbers 39 and 27 and their relation to powers of three. But that feels more like a "hint" - I don't see anything solid I can derive from it. I can see that 39 x 27 = 81 x 13 = 1053, but what does that have to do with leaven?


The hidden things of scripture need some study, and since you disallow the 5 crosses at Calvary, I suspect something's been 'ingrained' to reject close examination -- I had once 'imagined' about the 3^4, but never really thought it would show, so now I consider as how the 81 was hidden... IMO, on purpose so we'd have this discussion!


In the same fashion, the disputes over the genealogy have been designed by the Holy Ghost as a challenge for us, so we'll "Study to be approved workmen". That's my opinion--sticking to it. Amen!:thumb:

[duxrow]

:attention:
The Joseph in Matthew is Mary's FATHER. The Joseph in Luke is Mary's Husband.

Only the one Joseph in Matthew. Goes: Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus.

Four Joseph's in Luke: The pedigree of the carpenter husband with family name..

I appreciate the translator's difficulty (like with NIV 'Assir'), but believe this is a difficulty we can resolve and understand correctly.:yo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In the same fashion, the disputes over the genealogy have been designed by the Holy Ghost as a challenge for us, so we'll "Study to be approved workmen". That's my opinion--sticking to it. Amen!:thumb:
If "the disputes over the genealogy have been designed by the Holy Ghost" then why did the same "Holy Ghost" inspire these verses?

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.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

And given the amount of manipulation required to arrive at your table of 66 generations, how can it serve as reliable "evidence" of anything? It seems your conclusions contain too much uncertainty to be convincing. I explained my reasons in this post from the 33/66 Pattern (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern&p=43261#post43261) thread:


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

And here is how you answered:


: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:

I am not "searching for a WAY OUT." That's a cop-out. The problem is that I have high standards for evidence, and your evidence has problems. As long as those problems remain, I don't understand how you can "believe it's the Truth that only the Holy Spirit can convince you of." The Holy Spirit would have no problem convincing me if it were the truth. He'd only have to present the evidence, and I would believe. But the evidence is missing, and so I cannot believe. It's really pretty simple. For example, I still believe the evidence of the Bible Wheel is valid because no one has ever shown me a reason to reject it. I would accept your theory if it were supported by the facts.

[duxrow]

:bricks:
Have it your way, Rich. Gave it my best shot, I think. But about the 'endless genealogies', have always reckoned that to be speaking of how the 12 Tribes argued between themselves over property rights, etc. Even so, the criticism has always rankled me, so you may be right. You don't like my bringing Zelophehad into the conversation, and not Hezekiah either, so let's just forget the whole matter. :yo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:attention:
The Joseph in Matthew is Mary's FATHER. The Joseph in Luke is Mary's Husband.

Only the one Joseph in Matthew. Goes: Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus.

Four Joseph's in Luke: The pedigree of the carpenter husband with family name..

I appreciate the translator's difficulty (like with NIV 'Assir'), but believe this is a difficulty we can resolve and understand correctly.:yo:
Your answer appears confused. You must have meant that there are two Joseph's in Matthew: her father (Joseph #1) and her husband (Joseph #2). But this doesn't work because both are called the "aner" of Mary, and the father is never called the aner in Greek:
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph [#1] the father [aner] of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. ... 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph [#2], before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph [#2] her husband [aner], being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Your theory directly contradicts the text of Scripture and the facts of the Greek language. Why would anyone believe it? How is it that you can think on the one hand that the Bible was inspired, while on the other hand showing that it is too confused to be believed?

[duxrow]

:bawl:
NOT Confused. Only one Joseph in MATTHEW, and he's the Father of Mary.

What's hard to understand about the 4 generations of Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus ??

In the Old Testament it was Jacob to Joseph to the Two Tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. (no daughters). Sorry if that confuses you.:winking0071:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:bawl:
NOT Confused. Only one Joseph in MATTHEW, and he's the Father of Mary.

OK - no confusion. Mary and her dad were married:

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph [her father] being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and he took unto him his wife [who was also his daughter]: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Glad you cleared that up for me!



What's hard to understand about the 4 generations of Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus ??

Nothing at all! It would have been very simple for the Holy Ghost to inspire Matthew to record that Mary's father was named Joseph, and that her husband was also named Joseph. But the Bible doesn't say that. Why can't you see this?



In the Old Testament it was Jacob to Joseph to the Two Tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. (no daughters). Sorry if that confuses you.:winking0071:
It doesn't confuse me at all. But it has nothing to do with the Joseph who was the husband of Mary.

[duxrow]

:sCh_christian:
This is madness! To be arguing for keeping Mary's husband in the chapter of the Genealogy of Jesus. HE DOESN'T BELONG THERE! Can't help what the old fogies thought back in the days before we had computers, concordances, interlinears, etc. and can understand their difficulty, but just plain old common sense plus believing Jesus was born of a virgin, compels me to question that old fashioned logic.

Having Mary's husband in the pedigree of Jesus BELIES the Truth. And we ought to be able to see how the Truth of His Pedigree fits with other data and agrees with ALL the evidence. :sCo_hmmthink:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:sCh_christian:
This is madness! To be arguing for keeping Mary's husband in the chapter of the Genealogy of Jesus. HE DOESN'T BELONG THERE! Can't help what the old fogies thought back in the days before we had computers, concordances, interlinears, etc. and can understand their difficulty, but just plain old common sense plus believing Jesus was born of a virgin, compels me to question that old fashioned logic.

Having Mary's husband in the pedigree of Jesus BELIES the Truth. And we ought to be able to see how the Truth of His Pedigree fits with other data and agrees with ALL the evidence. :sCo_hmmthink:

I don't blame you for being frustrated. The problem comes down to one thing: the Bible says that Joseph was the husband [aner] of Mary. You have not dealt with this point yet. Just tell me if this is how you are interpreting the genealogy:

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph [#1] the father [aner] of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. ... 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph [#2], before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph [#2] her husband [aner], being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Are you saying that there are two Joseph's in this passage - one being Mary's father and the other her husband, and that both were called her "aner"?

Is that what you are claiming?

[CWH]

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;45942]You missed the point of Rose's article. The fact that the male sperm determines the sex of the baby has nothing to do with anything Rose wrote. And your post ignores the Jewish tradition that says a person is Jewish if and only if the mother is Jewish (of if the person converted).
The reason why children born from Jewish mothers are considered Jews because this is where they got their Jewish blood from. BTW, all of us are considered God's children regardless if one is born Jewish or not the moment we believed in Him.


The point of Rose's post is that the birth of females is ignored in the Bible almost entirely. The only births that mattered were the births of males. The women are treated as secondary characters of little importance. This reveals a profound male bias in the Bible.
I have said before which you have ignored that this is due to respect of Adam being the elder and that Eve was made from Adam. It has nothing to do with male bias. God love both males and females equally and females are not denied the entry into the kingdom of heaven. The birth of males were highlighted more than the females because he carries the father's name. The wife usually carries the husband's name such as Mrs X to indicate and remind others that she belongs to her husband Mr. X and not someone else and the children born belongs to both of them.


You said: "Since the sex of the fetus came from the father, it is correct that they named after the father rather than after the mother." Why is that? You gave no reason. And besides, the opposite is true. It's easy to know who the mother is, whereas the father could have been anybody. Therefore, the child should be named after the mother since that's the only person that can be identified with certainty. That's why the Jews say a Jew must be have a Jewish mother.
I have given the answer which you ignored. This is precisely the case which may help in preventing adultery and promiscuity. If a woman have multiple partners, she will not know who the child's father is. It will not be fair to the child born without knowing who is his real father. However, if the mother were to named him after the father's name, she and the child will be able to know who is the real father. Even if the woman were to marry and divorce multiple times and mothered children from multiple husbands, she and the children and others will know whose child belongs to who if the children was named according to their own fathers instead of the mother's name. In olden days when men usually died young due to wars, the child born to him will not be able to know who was his father unless he carries the father's name. This is fair to everybody...to the child, the father, the mother and others if the child carries the father's name instead of the mother's name; the child will know who his father is, the father will know who is his child and the mother and others will know who is the father.


God is Wise and May God Bless the Family.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The reason why children born from Jewish mothers are considered Jews because this is where they got their Jewish blood from. BTW, all of us are considered God's children regardless if one is born Jewish or not the moment we believed in Hi,.

It looks like you are contradicting yourself. First you said that "Since the sex of the fetus came from the father, it is correct that they named after the father rather than after the mother" now you give reasons it should be based on the mother.

You are just making stuff up. And none of this has anything to do with what Rose wrote anyway. We are not talking about who is considered "God's children." We are talking about the fact that the Bible puts extreme emphasis on the birth of males and ignores the birth of females almost entirely. This shows a strong male bias.



I have said before which you have ignored that this is due to respect of Adam being the elder and that Eve was made from Adam. It has nothing to do with male bias. God love both males and females equally and females are not denied the entry into the kingdom of heaven. The birth of males were highlighted more than the females because he carries the father's name. The wife usually carries the husband name such as Mrs X to indicate and remind others that she belongs to her husband Mr. X and not someone else and the children born belongs to both of them.

"The birth of males were highlighted more than the females because he carries the father's name." That's exactly correct. It is because males were considered important. That shows a strong male bias.

"She belongs to Mr. X" - just like his house and cattle. The wife was considered property. That's a male bias.



I have given the answer which you ignored. This is precisely the case which may help in preventing adultery and promiscuity. If a woman have multiple partners, she will not know who the child's father is. It will not be fair to the child born without knowing who is his real father. However, if the mother were to named him after the father's name, she and the child will be able to know who is his real father. Even if the woman were to marry and divorce multiple times and mothered children from multiple husbands, she and the children and others will know whose child belongs to who if the children was named according to their own fathers instead of the mother's name. In olden days when men usually died young due to wars, the child born to him will not be able to know who was his father unless he carries the father's name. This is fair to everybody...to the child, the father, the mother and others if the child carries the father's name instead of the mother's name; the child will know who his father is, the father will know who is his child and the mother and others will know who is the father.

The issue is not about "carrying the father's name." You have missed the point from the beginning. The issue is that the Bible only records the birth of males. This shows a strong bias in favor of the males. The women are treated as nothing of any importance.