Luke 3 Genealogy

[duxrow]

:typing:
Luke3 Genealogy – 74 names when the Cainan of Arphaxad omitted

Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala, Lamech, Noe (1st ten)
Sem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Sala, Heber, Phalec, Ragau, Saruch, Nachor, Thara, Abraham, (eleven)
Isaac, Jacob, Juda, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naasson, Salmon, Booz (3rd ten)
Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan, Mattatha, Menan, Melea, Eliakim, Jonan, Joseph (4th ten)
Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jose, Er, Elmodam, Cosam (5th ten)
Addi, Melchi, Neri, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Rhesa, Joanna, Juda, Joseph, Semei, (6th ten)
Mattathias, Maath, Nagge, Esli, Naum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Janus, Melchi (7th ten)
Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph (Mary’s husband)

This is reversed order, and arranged in units of ten. Note the 4 Josephs and
other repeated names in this Priest Line based on Number 26 and 36.
Num36:8 "And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel,
shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy
every man the inheritance of his fathers".

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:typing:
Luke3 Genealogy – 74 names when the Cainan of Arphaxad omitted

Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala, Lamech, Noe (1st ten)
Sem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Sala, Heber, Phalec, Ragau, Saruch, Nachor, Thara, Abraham, (eleven)
Isaac, Jacob, Juda, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naasson, Salmon, Booz (3rd ten)
Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan, Mattatha, Menan, Melea, Eliakim, Jonan, Joseph (4th ten)
Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jose, Er, Elmodam, Cosam (5th ten)
Addi, Melchi, Neri, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Rhesa, Joanna, Juda, Joseph, Semei, (6th ten)
Mattathias, Maath, Nagge, Esli, Naum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Janus, Melchi (7th ten)
Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph (Mary’s husband)

This is reversed order, and arranged in units of ten. Note the 4 Josephs and
other repeated names in this Priest Line based on Number 26 and 36.
Num36:8 "And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel,
shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy
every man the inheritance of his fathers".

This shows again why the genealogies can't be trusted. There are textual variations in different copies of Luke. There are Greek manuscripts of Luke that have another name, Admin, inserted, which brings the count to 77:

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,

The wiki offers some important insights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus):

Augustine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#cite_note-5) notes that the count of generations in Luke is 77, a remarkable number symbolizing the forgiveness of all sins.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#cite_note-6) This count also agrees with the seventy generations from Enoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_%28ancestor_of_Noah%29)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#cite_note-7) set forth in the Book of Enoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch), which Luke probably knew.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#cite_note-bauckham-8) Though Luke never counts the generations as Matthew does, it appears that he too follows the hebdomadic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon#Hebdomad) principle of working in sevens. However, Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus), one of the earliest witnesses, counts only 72 generations from Adam.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#cite_note-9)

Since the nature of Luke’s genealogy has made it particularly susceptible to scribal corruption, determining the original text from the manuscript evidence has been especially problematic. The most controversial section, oddly, is in the ancestry of David, which is well established in the Old Testament. Although the reading “son of Aminadab, son of Aram,” in agreement with the Old Testament, is well attested, the Nestle-Aland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestle-Aland) critical edition, considered the best authority by most modern scholars, accepts the variant “son of Aminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni,”[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#cite_note-10) counting the 77 generations from Adam rather than God.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#cite_note-11)

So all the conclusions from genealogies are just word games. Augustine counted 77 and thought that was significant because it relates to Christ's statement about forgiving 70 x 7 times (or 77 times in some versions), just like you think that 66 is significant because it corresponds to the number of books in the modern Protestant Bible. And when a name is omitted? No problem! We'll just count generations from Adam instead of from God! That solves everything. This shows why arbitrary after-the-fact pattern fitting is highly suspect. Nobody can have any confidence that the "patterns" they find really mean anything or were intended by the "Holy Ghostwriter." People just make up whatever it takes to "find" (i.e. invent) whatever "pattern" they like. Things like this have been going on for thousands of years.

[duxrow]

:sCh_christian:Just for the record, Ram, it's my contention that Mary's husband has no biz being in the Pedigree of Jesus (aka Matthew 1), and that the Joseph there is Mary's FATHER!
Jesus knew Mary as his mother, and knew that his 'supposed' father, and his grandfather, were BOTH named Joseph. Gives new meaning to the modern term "grandfathered", you think? :winking0071:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:sCh_christian:Just for the record, Ram, it's my contention that Mary's husband has no biz being in the Pedigree of Jesus (aka Matthew 1), and that the Joseph there is Mary's FATHER!
Jesus knew Mary as his mother, and knew that his 'supposed' father, and his grandfather, were BOTH named Joseph. Gives new meaning to the modern term "grandfathered", you think? :winking0071:
I understand your interpretation of Joseph in Matt's genealogy is Mary's dad. That would really fix some problems. It's the same thing a guess who believes in the Peshitta as the original NT says. And that's fine ... except there is no actual evidence for it and it means that the Greek NT is entirely unreliable because its nothing but a flawed translation of a non-existent Aramaic original.

Why do you say that Jesus "knew that his 'supposed' father, and his grandfather, were BOTH named Joseph"? It's one thing for you to believe this because of your studies, but it's quite another to assert that "Jesus knew it."

And no, I don't see any good pun on the idea of "grandfathering" in the sense of "to exempt from new regulations." What "new regulations" was Jesus exempted from?

[duxrow]

I understand your interpretation of Joseph in Matt's genealogy is Mary's dad. That would really fix some problems. It's the same thing a guess who believes in the Peshitta as the original NT says. And that's fine ... except there is no actual evidence for it and it means that the Greek NT is entirely unreliable because its nothing but a flawed translation of a non-existent Aramaic original.

Why do you say that Jesus "knew that his 'supposed' father, and his grandfather, were BOTH named Joseph"? It's one thing for you to believe this because of your studies, but it's quite another to assert that "Jesus knew it."
And no, I don't see any good pun on the idea of "grandfathering" in the sense of "to exempt from new regulations." What "new regulations" was Jesus exempted from?

:sCo_hmmthink: Not flawed, as I see it--maybe cause it supports my contention of the 2 Joseph's kin to Mary. Your guest and I might have something worth agreeing on, or even sharing...?

Just this week made the 'grandfathering' connection, so am still having a laugh over it --
the "Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus" progression becomes real enough to taste!

No point in digging up those 1st century writers or non-canon books, 'cause there's a scripture saying we'll KNOW MORE than them! Ps119:100. Luckily we all get to learn to read for ourselves. amen? :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:sCo_hmmthink: Not flawed, as I see it--maybe cause it supports my contention of the 2 Joseph's kin to Mary. Your guest and I might have something worth agreeing on, or even sharing...?

Check out his post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2368-Why-I-quit-Christianity&p=47365#post47365). He is a proponent of the idea that the Aramaic Peshitta NT as the original text and uses it to directly support your thesis that Joseph was the father of Mary. You two should get along splendidly. :thumb:



Just this week made the 'grandfathering' connection, so am still having a laugh over it --
the "Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus" progression becomes real enough to taste!

You are demonstrating the odd human predilection for becoming enamored with your own theory despite all evidence against it.



No point in digging up those 1st century writers or non-canon books, 'cause there's a scripture saying we'll KNOW MORE than them! Ps119:100. Luckily we all get to learn to read for ourselves. amen? :thumb:
Psalm 119:110 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts.

That Psalm doesn't say a word about which books belong in the canon.

Do you have any objectively verifiable basis for your assertion that that 66 book canon is the true canon? The catholics have 72 books, why should anyone think they are wrong?

[duxrow]

Check out his post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2368-Why-I-quit-Christianity&p=47365#post47365). He is a proponent of the idea that the Aramaic Peshitta NT as the original text and uses it to directly support your thesis that Joseph was the father of Mary. You two should get along splendidly. :thumb:


Nah. I saw his first post and thought that too, but don't believe he see's the Pedigree or the 66 -- sounds mostly financial, to me.

You are demonstrating the odd human predilection for becoming enamored with your own theory despite all evidence against it.
Yeah, know I'm in the minority on this, but the numbers really have nothing to do with being correct. As this forum so properly states over and over.

Psalm 119:110 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts.
That works both ways, doesn't it?

That Psalm doesn't say a word about which books belong in the canon.
Really! But isn't that what we're debating?

Do you have any objectively verifiable basis for your assertion that that 66 book canon is the true canon? The catholics have 72 books, why should anyone think they are wrong?

:sEm_blush8:Am surprised at this from the author of the Triple Acrostic Wheel, which seems to me a hidden parallel fitting the 39+27 and 37x73 numerical clues to Holy Ghostwriter. :yo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Nah. I saw his first post and thought that too, but don't believe he see's the Pedigree or the 66 -- sounds mostly financial, to me.

Everyone has to make a living. He's invested a lot of time and energy. I think he's sincere though I disagree with his conclusion.



Yeah, know I'm in the minority on this, but the numbers really have nothing to do with being correct. As this forum so properly states over and over.

The issue is not that you are in the minority, but that you are wrong. I've presented the reasons for this conclusion and to my knowledge you have never given an adequate answer.



Really! But isn't that what we're debating?

Yes, it's what we are debating, but it's not what that Psalm is talking about so I don't know why you quoted it.




:sEm_blush8:Am surprised at this from the author of the Triple Acrostic Wheel, which seems to me a hidden parallel fitting the 39+27 and 37x73 numerical clues to Holy Ghostwriter. :yo:

As far as I know, the evidence from the Bible Wheel is still valid. But you weren't arguing from the Bible Wheel. You began with the assumption that the 66 book canon is the correct canon, and then did a LOT of work to make the genealogy of Christ fit that pattern. You have not shown any "acrostic" pattern in the genealogies. The evidence you present is far to weak to convince anyone. The Bible Wheel, on the other hand, is the only objectively verifiable evidence for the 66 book canon that I have ever seen. I still can't refute it even as an unbeliever who has completely rejected the Bible as authoritative. How's that for irony?

[duxrow]

:winking0071:Am grateful Ram, for your assist in ‘sharpening my edge’.. but it’s offset by your blindness to the figurative content of scripture, or inability to imagine things from their POV.. and BTW, I apologize for my ‘financial’ remark (not called for), but never saw anything on his site, not even his poetry, to indicate he saw the mystery and allegory as I do.

The Book of Ruth tells of Naomi exchanging her two sons for ONE DAUGHTER. Couple that with how the Joseph in Egypt had just two sons (no daughters), but the Joseph in Matthew has only one daughter (no sons).

The 3x10 generations of the OT has symmetry with the 3x14 of the NT, just as the 33 generations to David are followed by another 33 to Jesus.

The 19 names prior to Abraham agree with adding the five ‘skipped’ names of the Solomon column in Matthew.

The no-sons account of Zelophehad in Numb26 agrees w Mary’s situation of having no brothers.

The requirement for girls to marry into their own tribe agrees with Numb 36.

Three names are ‘skipped’ in Ruth’s Ten, and 3 names are ‘skipped’ in Matthew, right at the 39/27 junction.

The two father-son pair of “Jacob to Joseph” both appear in Matthew: worthy of our attention.

Also, the two father-son pair of “Salathiel to Zorobabel” -- they aren’t the same! (one in Mt1, other in Lk3)

The 33 and 66 agree with the acrostic eleven style; like Ps119 and Lamentations, and “11-Joseph”.

The multiple Joseph’s in Luke3 fit the profile of Mary’s husband. Besides, the Joseph in Egypt was the beloved eleventh son, and eleven Joseph’s appear in the Bible (by my count) – this part ‘maybe’ could be helped or confirmed with an English version of the Peshitta. (Don’t have one, so don’t know). :sFun_dangling: