Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Seeing how this note has been here a whole 15 minutes without a response
(which is almost a record for this conference!), I conclude that there
are no errors in the original Biblical manuscripts. :-)

    Define "error".

>         There is no evidence to suggest that the original manuscripts (of
>         the Bible) contained any error.

No original manuscripts are known to exist.

Peace,
Richard

    Re.0
       
          When that which we call the "Bible" was agreed upon that
      which was chosen to be included represented a very specific
      point of view. 
           Any one or thing that that was not in agreement with this
      point of view was repressed and rather harshly at that. That is
      why there is doctrinal uniformity you claim exists.
           One could claim that this was God's way of preserving his
      word I suppose, but I tend to think of it as another case of
      the winners getting to write the history books.
    
     
                                                       Mike

    While not errors, these seem to be contradictions that are
    contained in the New Testament:
        
    
    1. Why does the first chapter of Matthew, go into a long and detailed
       explanation of the ancestry of Jesus, tracing it through *Joseph*
       back to King David, if Christ was born of *virgin* birth? 
    
    2. Which quote, "Blessed are the poor", or "Blessed are the poor
       in spirit", is the correct, unquestionable, one to believe?
    
    3. What happened to the letter of Paul to the Galatians, "There
       is neither Jew of Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
       is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus"?
    
    4. Judas hangs himself in Matthew, but dies of an accidental fall
       in Acts.
    
    5. The Crucifixion occurs before Passover in John but during Passover
       in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
    
    6. Some of the apostles are described as witnessing the Crucifixion
       in Luke, but they flee the scene beforehand in Matthew and Mark.
    

                                                       Mike

There's more: the description in some of the gospels of the events after
the ressurrection don't tally. Different people are involved, they see different
things. Why the differences?

    I don't have the resources (Biblical or computational) to go into this
    in any depth now.  But especially in relation to the questions about
    the differences in the gospel accounts about incidents around the time
    of the crucifiction/resurection of Christ.
    
    Two points - first, for the followers of Jesus, *this* was a very
    trying time.   They had thrown everything into believing and following
    this man.  Although they were Jews (and all that that implies about the
    God of Israel), they believed this man to be God.  To see Him crucified
    was a very traumatic experience.  And then to have Him resurrected
    several days later is even more mind blowing.  So, the fact of some
    differences is not at all surprising.
    	Secondly, along the same lines.  These are all different accounts
    of the same events.  Mostly by eye-witnesses, but some by people who
    interviewed eye-witnesses.  A period of time (say 20 to 60 years) had
    passed between the actual events, and their being written down.  And
    they were all different people.  If they were all identical, then you
    could say "ah hah !  There has been collusion between the authors here. 
    they all say the exact same thing."  (perhaps ``plagarism'' ?).  But
    they all saw things slightlyl differently, and this (at least according
    to a friend of mine who is a Judge) leads to a higher level of
    authenticity.  There are no -major- differences.  One remebers things
    happening in one order, another in a slightly different order.  But the
    events must have happened, even if the *exact* chronological order is
    not (yet) established.  "Different people are involved, they see
    different things." and *that* is "why the differences".
    
    hazza :*]
    
    	(yes, no capital `h' - it's a ``nick-name'' - "real" name is Harold
    Vaughan Woodward-Clarke a.k.a. Harry, prefer "hazza" - at least that's
    what my friends call me (except for the one who calls me VWB :) -
    forget who that's in responce to  h :*]

    re:5
    Hi Mike!
I can answer the first one, being it's my favorite gospel.        
    
>    1. Why does the first chapter of Matthew, go into a long and detailed
>       explanation of the ancestry of Jesus, tracing it through *Joseph*
>       back to King David, if Christ was born of *virgin* birth? 

    Matthew's gospel was speaking to the Jews of his time. The Jewish
    leaders where strongly denying Jesus as being the Messiah. They used
    Scripture to try and prove their points. One of their arguments being 
    that Jesus was not from the house of David, which Scripture stated was
    where the Messiah would come from. So Matthew gave a detailed description of
    Jesus genealogical ancestry.  I don't recall the verse number in the
    Bible, but the Pharisees stated  that Jesus could not be the Messiah, 
    because he was from Nazareth, and those of the House of David came from 
    Bethlehem. So this is why Matthew gave the Genealogy of Jesus.


    Peace
    Jim

    I've been told (haven't checked for myself) that Matthew's listing of
    Jesus' lineage doesn't match OT listings.
    
    I'm curious about this and will have to post more later to start the
    discussion.
    
    Steve

Re:  .3

  >No original manuscripts are known to exist.

So much for the evidence for those who claim they are filled with errors!

:-)  :-)

Re:  .4

  >that which was chosen to be included represented a very specific point
  >of view

Actually, what you call a "point of view" is simply a (logical and
necessary) requirement that new writings not contradict existing writings.
This is logical and necessary because God does not lie, God breathed out
the Biblical writings and therefore anything that God breathed is necessarily
consistent with other God breathed literature.

Let's look more closely at what went on.

First, the letters (books) were accepted *as written*.  There were no
changes proposed or made to what had been passed down.  This consistency
that you find then is hardly because of editing, but because it existed
in these writings all along.

Secondly, there were various criteria used.  Of high importance among
these was the authorship.  There are no known writings of, for example,
Paul or Peter that were rejected.  In other words, it's not that the
Church decided what they wanted to believe (which you imply), but rather
that some were recognized as leaders of the church designated by God
to write what God was breathing through them.

That's all for now.  Other things to write.

Collis

    That's if you assume, of course, that both of the epistles attributed
    to Peter were really written by him, and that all the the pauline
    letters were really written by Paul.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  27.5  Mike
    
    1. Why does the first chapter of Matthew, go into a long and detailed
       explanation of the ancestry of Jesus, tracing it through *Joseph*
       back to King David, if Christ was born of *virgin* birth? 

Good question.  Personally, I think it has some relevance.  God made
it clear that the Messiah was going to be of the line of King David.
The line (apparently according to the geneology) runs through the
man.  Therefore, despite it was not Joseph's seed that produced Jesus,
Jesus was still of Joseph's line in the sense that Joseph was his
"father".

    2. Which quote, "Blessed are the poor", or "Blessed are the poor
       in spirit", is the correct, unquestionable, one to believe?

I didn't know this was in doubt.  My Greek New Testament clearly has
the word "spirit".  I do have a book at home which judges all the manuscript
evidence giving ratings to the questionable words or phrases that differ
in the various manuscripts.  I can look it up to see if this is one where
various manuscripts differ.

By the way, the word "poor" means literally "begger".  There is a seperate
word for poor which means able to sustain oneself at the low end of the
economic scale.  Those who reach out to God in spirit as a begger are
those who will be blessed by God.  Those who reach out to God in pride
or demanding what they think is theirs will be rejected by God.
    
    3. What happened to the letter of Paul to the Galatians, "There
       is neither Jew of Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
       is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus"?

This does indeed discuss the standing of everyone before God who has
been saved.  It does not (and never did, according both to the context
of Galations 5 and the other letters of Paul) describe the appropriate
roles that we should have on earth.
    
    4. Judas hangs himself in Matthew, but dies of an accidental fall
       in Acts.

This is easily explained.  Both happened.  Judas hung himself and when
his body was released (whether intetionally or unintentionally), he
fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
   
    5. The Crucifixion occurs before Passover in John but during Passover
       in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

You totally lost me on this one.  John spends a great deal of time
describing what happened at the Passover meal (John 13-17).  The
Crucifixion is clearly portrayed as the next morning.  Perhaps you could
be more specific as to where you find a discrepency?
    
    6. Some of the apostles are described as witnessing the Crucifixion
       in Luke, but they flee the scene beforehand in Matthew and Mark.

I just read Matthew and Mark don't see any mention of Jesus disciples not
being at the Crucifixion.  Perhaps you can point out to me where you
see this?  Be as specific as you can.  Who fleed?  When?  What were his
actions during the Crucifixion (a verse saying he was "there" or "not
there" is really what is needed, I think).
    
Do these explanations make sense to you?

Collis

Re:  .12

I don't think we even need to assume that the epistles were written by
Peter and Paul.  All we need to do is to find out what the Church fathers
in the 4th century thought.  Fortunately we have those records and they
believed that all the letters attributed today to Paul (by conservative
scholarship) and the two letters attribute today to Peter (also by
conservative scholarship) were written by those men.  This is the
criteria they used.

Collis

    That's of course if you assume that "conservative scholarship" isn't an
    oxymoron.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    re.14
    
    My question is, why do some of us accept the authority of the word of 
    people who lived some 400 years after the letters were supposedly
    written as authorities?
    
    Nanci 

re Note 27.16 by BSS::VANFLEET:

>     My question is, why do some of us accept the authority of the word of 
>     people who lived some 400 years after the letters were supposedly
>     written as authorities?
  
        Well, I rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide the
        body of Christians away from "fatal" problems (i.e., the
        gates of hell cannot prevail against the body).

        Bob

    It is interesting to note that the number one criteria for inclusion in
    the canon of the New Testament was that the text had to be associated
    with an apostle.  There was considerable controversy over the inclusion
    of the Revelation.  A lamentable decision was made, I feel.  Also, the
    Gospel according to John was suspect of being of possible Gnostic
    origin.  (OH, MY!)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar because they share a lot of
    source material.  That is why they are lumped together as the
    "synoptic" Gospels.
    
    -- Mike

    
    
    ...and probably why those particular Gospels made it to the final cut. 
    Very little controversy arises when you're essentially repeating the
    same line over and over and over.  :-)  (I'm not ignoring the differences
    that exist here - just responding to the similarities.)
    
    Nanci

Mike,

How do you think conservative scholars became conservative scholars?

(No, they didn't flunk out of school. :-) )

They recognized the scholarly problem of denying the authority of the
Bible which was expressed and assumed throughout the Scriptures.  That
certainly is why *I'm* a conservative (although I don't classify as a
conservative scholar - too many wild parties late at night :-) )

Perhaps when the liberals address the same problem adequately, the
ranks of conservative scholars will grow...

Collis

    The question is whether or not conservative scholars ever grow beyond
    that mode of thinking into something more intellectually tenable.  Some
    do, some don't.
    
    -- Mike

Whether or not conservative scholarship is intellectually tenable has been
well proven even in these notes conferences.  (In case you were wondering,
the answer is that it is.  But you knew that. :-) )

Instead of debating subjective opinions, let's discuss the issues.  Let's
think, mull, exegate, ponder, even pray and love one another and see if we 
can grow in our understanding of who God is and who we should be.

Collis

    Sorry, Collis, as you well know, I consider conservative scholarship
    that is based on the premise of biblical inerrancy to be intellectually
    untenable.

    And as for debating subjective opinions, I would prefer not to debate
    here at all.  Discuss, yes.  But with our premises do different,
    debating doesn't really accomplish much.

    -- Mike

        Mike and Collis,

        Does authority require inerrancy?  I gather that, for
        conservative Christians today, as well as most Christians
        throughout history, the answer is "yes".

        Yet I don't see that one demands the other (the example I
        give is the many human works that exist which are
        acknowledged authorities yet not acknowledged inerrant).

        Bob

  >Does authority require inerrancy?

In my opinion, no.

It is not because I want the Bible to be authoritative that I hold to
inerrancy.

It is because the Bible (in my best, reasoned understanding) claims
inerrancy that I hold to inerrancy.

Collis

	The following note has been extracted (without permission) from the
	BAGELS notes conference.

	The text suggests responses Jews can make to the "Jews for Jesus"
	missionaries who try to convert them to Christianity, and points
	out various Biblical discrepancies.

	Comments please!

	Delia
	
================================================================================
Note 980.5                        Prager on J4J                           5 of 5
RACHEL::BARABASH "This note was written by TECO"    129 lines  27-SEP-1990 20:53
                          -< Hints on combatting J4J >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Jonathan Kaplan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Tips on Dealing w/J for J
Date: 18 Jul 90 02:48:52 GMT
Lines: 123
 
The Local Jewish Community Task Force on Missionary
Activities publishes a Brochure.  Here are two excerpts (all
typos are my fault) from the latest one.
 
WHAT DO WE SAY WHEN...?
 
     Jews for Judaism has developed the following five-step
method to guard against the abuses of Bible Roulette, a game
of chance in which no one wins.  The following is reprinted
from one of their publications.
 
STEP 1: Does the verse even exist within our Hebrew
Scriptures?
 
Example:"Joseph came and resided in a city called Nazareth
that what was spoken through the prophets might be
fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene'." (Matt, 2:23).
Nowhere does such a prophecy appear in our bible.
 
STEP 2: Is the verse being mistranslated?
     An effective missionary will work with crude English
retranslations of earlier Greek mistranslations, and will at
all costs avoid a look at the original Hebrew
     Example: Romans 11:26, the Christian Bible quotes
Isaiah as saying, "The deliverer will come from Zion, he
will remove ungodliness from Jacob," thus establishing
Scriptural support for its view that the Messiah will take
away our sins.  The original, however, Isaiah 59:20 says
exactly the opposite: "A redeemer will come to Zion and to
those who turn away from transgression in Jacob, declares
the Lord." The Messiah's role is not to take away our sins;
rather, when we turn away from our sins, the Messiah will
then come.
 
STEP 3: Has the context been distorted?
     Example: Matthew 1:23 cites Jesus' "virgin birth" as
being the fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in Isa. 7:14,
"Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a son."
Aside from the inaccurate translation of the word "almah,"
meaning "young woman," not "virgin," we learn from Isaiah 7
that the context is that of a prophecy made to King Ahaz to
allay his fears of two invading kings.
 
STEP 4: Viewed in context could this verse possibly refer to
Jesus of the "New Testament?"
 
EXAMPLE: In Heb. 1:5, the verse from 2 Samuel 7:14, "I will
be a father to him and he shall be a son to ME", :is said by
the "New Testament" author to be a prophetic reference to
Jesus.  But if we look at the verse from 2 Samuel in its
entirety, the verse doesn't end with the phrase quoted in
the "New Testament", but continues, "When he commits
iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men." Can this
possibly be referring to the "sinless" Jesus of the
Christian Bible?
 
STEP 5: Would we view this as a prophecy about Jesus without
the aid of the New Testament?
     In many cases, the Christian missionaries employ actual
messianic prophecies in the conversionary efforts.  These
usually take the following form:
     
     a. The Hebrew Bible says ____________ about the
Messiah.
 
     b. The "New Testament" says that Jesus fulfilled this
prophecy.
     c. Therefore Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
 
The flaw in the logic here is that the "proof" only points
to Jesus if you already accept the "New Testament."
 
 
------------------------------------------------------
 
The Jewish Community Relations Council in New York has made
available the following resources on missionaries:
 
 
 
() QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON CULTS AND MISSIONARY GROUPS, a
comprehensive look at frequently asked questions and the
best way to answer them.
 
() THE RISE OF HEBREW_CHRISTIANITY, by Julius Berman
 
() A NEW DILEMMA: MISSIONARIES AND CULTS IN ISRAEL, by
Julius Berman
 
() THE JEW AND THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY: A JEWISH RESPONSE
TO MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY, by Gerald Sigal
 
() YOU TAKE JESUS, I'LL TAKE G_D: HOW TO REFUTE CHRISTIAN
MISSIONARIES, by Samuel Levine.
 
The JCRC of New York also offers videos produced by Hebrew
Christian groups which explicitly demonstrate their
missionary techniques.  Please use discretion in showing
these films.
 
() "Jews for Jesus Passover film" (videotape)
 
() "Twice Chosen" -- a videotape produced by Assemblies of
G-d
 
() Jews for Jesus fundraising film (videotape)
 
() Video on proselytizing the Jewish people
 
To order any of these resources, please write to the Task
force on Missionaries and Cults, JCRC of New York,
                              12th floor, 711 Third Avenue
                              New York, NY 10017
 
 
     Other resources available locally [Boston]:
 
() From the UAHC, THE TARGET IS YOU!, a 30 -minute videotape
alerting Jewish teenagers and their parents about the danger
posed by Hebrew Christian missionary groups.
 
() From the Bureau of Jewish Education, various publications
are available.

    I realize Collis has addressed most of these, but since I started this
    topic I felt I should at least add a few cents. Of course if these (or
    any future) issues get involved we can certainly spin off separate
    topics. I'll be concise to save room for more...

    Re .5 (Mike Seabury)
    
>    1. Why does the first chapter of Matthew, go into a long and detailed
>       explanation of the ancestry of Jesus, tracing it through *Joseph*
>       back to King David, if Christ was born of *virgin* birth?

    Of course answering "why" is a bit risky - I'm not certain why the
    Spirit inspired the writing of some of the stuff. My *opinion* is that
    Matthew was just trying to show the legal right of Jesus to the Davidic
    throne by tracing Jesus' ancestry through His legal father. The Bible
    tells us in Genesis (3:15) that Jesus would be the "Seed of the woman".
    (This is kind of a big deal since in a patriarchal society it's the
    males who get all the press :-).

    So legally, Jesus has the right to the throne through His legal father
    Joseph as traced to David through his son Solomon. Spiritually, Jesus
    satisfies the prophecies by tracing His lineage (as recorded in Luke)
    through His mother Mary and up to David through his other son, Nathan.
    
>    2. Which quote, "Blessed are the poor", or "Blessed are the poor
>       in spirit", is the correct, unquestionable, one to believe?

    I don't believe this is a textual criticism question. Instead I think
    that both statements are true. The former quote is recorded in Luke
    6:20; the latter comes from Matthew 5:3. A comparison of the two
    accounts allows for the possibility that these are two different
    events. (Jesus goes up on a mountain in one, but He's on a level place
    in the other. He appears focused on the disciples in one, but He
    appears focused on the multitude in the other. The beatitudes
    themselves don't correspond very well.) I believe that Jesus said both
    of them (the veracity of one does not preclude the veracity of the
    other).
    
>    3. What happened to the letter of Paul to the Galatians, "There
>       is neither Jew of Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
>       is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus"?

    This is Gal. 3:28. I don't understand the question.
    
>    4. Judas hangs himself in Matthew, but dies of an accidental fall
>       in Acts.

    As Collis described, Judas went to hang himself and (either before or
    after he had died) his body fell from the tree and burst open.
    
>    5. The Crucifixion occurs before Passover in John but during Passover
>       in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

    I assume you're looking at the various Passover passages (which say
    that Jesus had the Passover meal with His disciples) and being thrown
    when reading John 18:28, which says that the following day the priests
    didn't enter the palace so they wouldn't be defiled and therefore not
    permitted to eat the Passover.

    There are (at least) two different explanations here, both of which
    have support. One is that the term "passover" can be used to denote the
    whole paschal festival, i.e. the 8-day-long combination of Passover
    meal plus the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (See Num. 28:16-18; Exo.
    23:15; Deut. 16:1-8; Mark 14:12.) The "eating of the passover" may
    therefore refer to keeping of the entire week-long festival. Under this
    explanation the priests were simply concerned with keeping themselves
    pure (talk about hypocrisy!) during the entire festival and presumably
    ate the Passover meal proper the evening that Jesus & co. did.

    The other explanation uses information from the Mishna, Josephus, et
    al., who tell us that Jews observed their days differently depending
    upon which geography they were from. We're told that northern Jews
    (including those from Galilee, i.e. Jesus and disciples) calculated
    days from sunrise to sunrise. Southern Jews (including those from
    Jerusalem, i.e. the priests of John 18:28) calculated days from sunset
    to sunset. This leads to a complicated understanding of exactly when
    things occurred, but it certainly explains how Jesus and His followers
    could hold the Passover meal on the correct day (viz. Nisan 14) as they
    reckoned days but that the priests didn't observe it until the
    following day.

    The second explanation has the nifty symbology of therefore having
    Christ observe the Passover with His followers while still *being* the
    Passover Lamb - both at the prescribed time. Figuring out the various
    time complications, though, is left as an exercise for the reader.
    
>    6. Some of the apostles are described as witnessing the Crucifixion
>       in Luke, but they flee the scene beforehand in Matthew and Mark.
    
    I'd need specific verses here.


Re Note 27.6 (SYSTEM::GOODWIN)

>    There's more: the description in some of the gospels of the events
>    after the ressurrection don't tally. Different people are involved,
>    they see different things. Why the differences?

    I'd need specific verses here.
    

Re Note 27.16 (Nanci)

    Don't forget that the development of the NT canon didn't occur one day
    when a bunch of folks got together and decreed it. It was an evolving
    process through "natural selection". Those who knew Jesus' teachings
    had to decide among themselves individually which documents were
    authoritative and therefore worthy to die for. Since they didn't have
    VAXnotes the dissemination of the documents took a little time. They did
    circulate relatively quickly, though.
    
    wrt Collis (.14) we needn't limit ourselves to 4th/5th-century folks.
    There are much earlier witnesses. Names and approximate dates include:

    	Marcion (theology notwithstanding) - 145
	Clement - 100
	Ignatius - 120
	Polycarp - 120

    Other writings (e.g. Epistle of Barnabas and 2 Clement) also testify to
    early canonization. By AD 180 there is sufficient evidence to indicate
    that both the Pauline epistles and the Gospels were in wide enough
    circulation to permit discussion and evaluation of the evolving NT
    canon.

    As one studies the formation of the NT canon one is struck with how
    these folks really effected the fixing of the canon by individually
    recognizing which writings were true and which were not. As the
    circulation became more widespread and others made the same conclusions
    very few books were seriously disputed.
    
    	BD�

    Bob, I think your question about authority requiring inerrancy is a
    valid one.  I agree with you that authority need not imply inerrancy. 
    
    -- Mike

    re:.27
    	I nearly skipped this one, glad I didn't. Then I looked for
    responses. Didn't find any. Come on guys, specific references are
    mentioned and scholarship expended, are you going to ignore it and hope
    it goes away ?
    	It's stuff like this that helps convince me not to base my faith to
    closely to any one concrete dogma. If stuff in the NT misquotes stuff
    in the OT and some proof is based on that mis-quote then that proof
    becomes bogus. Some other people might find their faith shattered and
    turn away.

	Mike, can I take a crack at some of your questions?  

	I'm writing this a little backwards because I've already compiled
the text that I want to use, but I need to explain a little.  First, sorry
for the length of this note, but you did ask for an answer, and I'm trying
to cover the subject matter as well as I can.  Secondly, with that said,
I will not be able to answer each of your questions in this one note.  I
will answer the first question here and then move on to answer the other 
questions (or pose more questions to you because of a lack of understanding
on my part) in subsequent replies.

	On with the show...

	Question 1.  Why does the first chapter of Matthew, go into a long
	             and detailed explanation of the ancestry of Jesus,
		     tracing it through *Joseph* back to King David, if Christ
		     was born of *virgin* birth.

	Most of the answers, and dare I say all of them you have probably 
heard deal with showing how Jesus was connected by blood to David's throne
which entitled him to sit upon it, but this in not the case.  In fact, it is
quite the opposite, which I demonstrate.

	First of all, all four gospel writers had selected different themes
that their particular writing, or gospel would cover.  No one gospel, nor all
of them combined contain everything Jesus said or did.  Each gospel writer
depending upon his theme, recorded those events or sayings of Jesus that 
applied to his theme.  For that matter, only one of the gospels claim to be
in chronological order (which is Luke).  The other three are mostly based upon
a geographical order, i.e. if Jesus was in Jerusalem, then they talked about
what He did in Jerusalem.  When in doubt as to when a specific event took
place in Jesus' life, Luke is the only one who claims to have put the life of
Christ in order, just the way it happened.

	With that, Matthew's opening passages and detail around the birth
and early life of Jesus are told from Joseph's point of view, where Mary plays
a passive role.  In Luke, it is the opposite.  The birth and early life are 
told from Mary's perspective, where Joseph plays a passive role.

	We know that there are two genealogies of Jesus (Matt, Luke) and this
is due to the fact that there was an Old Testament requirement of two 
genealogies for kingship.  One was applicable to the southern kingdom of Judah
with Jerusalem as its capital.  The other one was applicable to the northern
kingdom of Israel with its capital in Samaria.  One requirement said that
anyone wishing to be king, had to be of Davidic decent.  This requirement was
applied to the throne in Jerusalem.  No one who was not of Davidic decent
could sit upon the throne in Jerusalem.  The second requirement was that he
had to have divine appointment, or prophetic sanction.  This requirement
applied to the northern kingdom.  No one could sit upon Samaria's throne
unless he had divine appointment, or prophetic sanction.  For your question,
I'll just focus in on the first requirement, that of Davidic decent.

	Matthew's genealogy that traces Joseph's lineage breaks with Jewish
custom.  Matthew does so by adding names of women, which was forbidden, and
skips names.  The purpose of Matthew's genealogy is if Jesus was really
Joseph's son, why he could NOT be king.  I HOPE EVERYONE THAT IS READING THIS
RE-READS THAT LAST STATEMENT!!  Again, why Jesus could NOT be king, and not in
support of his right to sit on the throne.

	Looking at Matthew's genealogy, he starts his from Abraham and ends
with Joseph.  Luke records his in reverse order.  This isn't significant, just
and extra..big deal.  If you move down to verse 6 of Matthew chapt. 1, you
will see that Matthew lists David's son Solomon as being part of Joseph's
line.  In Luke's account, he does not list Solomon, but Nathan, David's other
son whom Mary's lineage came from.  This is significant and we'll see why.

	Moving to verse 12 of Matt. chapt. 1, we see the name of Jechoniah as 
being part of Joseph's lineage.  Jechoniah was a special guy and turning to the
Old Testament book of Jeremiah, chapter 22:24 we see Jechoniah.  Actually,
the name appears as Jehoiakim, but it is the same person (you'll have to trust
my Hebrew scholar friend).  It's just another way of saying Jechoniah.  From 
verse 24 thru verse 30 we see that the prophet Jeremiah pronounced a curse upon
him.  In verse 30 we see that this curse was such that no descendant of his 
would ever have the right to the Davidic throne.  

	So, if Joseph was a direct descendant of Jechoniah, then he nor any
of his sons would have the right to sit upon the throne in Jerusalem.  If
Jesus was *really* Joseph's son, this would disqualify Jesus from being king.
This is a problem and Matthew deals with this problem by explaining the virgin
birth AFTER his genealogy.  Luke is just the opposite.  He has no problem
with Jechoniah because Mary's line differs because she was descended from 
David's son Nathan, which meant that the curse of Jechoniah could not be
applied to Nathan's descendants, so Luke doesn't even bother to give his
genealogy until chapter 3.

	So, the whole reason for Matthew's genealogy was to show why Jesus
could NOT of been king if he was really Joseph's son, due to the curse upon
Joseph's side of the family through Jechoniah.  On the other hand, Luke's
genealogy shows why Jesus could be king, because her side of the family was
clean.

							bill..g.

p.s. If you want to discuss Luke's genealogy, I'd be more than happy to do so.

	For the rest of your questions:
    

    2. Which quote, "Blessed are the poor", or "Blessed are the poor
       in spirit", is the correct, unquestionable, one to believe?

	I suspect that you are talking about the difference in the two gospel
accounts around what is commonly referred to as the Sermon on the Mount?
I'm not going to get into a big discussion about the Sermon on the Mount, but
suffice to say that most have misunderstood its meaning and have tried to say
that it is a model of "christian ethics".  Granted, some of these do become
part of christian ethics, but the Sermon on the Mount was never intended to
be a model of christian ethics.  

	Briefly, examining its real context reveals that Jesus was teaching
what the characteristics of true righteousness was according to the Mosaic
Law, compared to the characteristics of righteousness that the Pharisaic
system was teaching about the Mosaic Law.

	So, explaining the poor in spirit verse.  The opposite of poor in
the spirit is being prideful.  To be poor in the spirit is to have a right
and proper evaluation of oneself toward God.  There is the recognition that
one has no righteousness of his own, and whatever righteousness he has is a
righteousness received from God.  So one who is poor in the spirit is totally
dependent upon God for mercy and salvation.

	This is in direct conflict with the Pharisaic model that was following
him around.  Jesus was trying to show them that there interpretation of the
Mosaic Law had gotten off course and had become to legalistic.

	I see no contradiction between the two, because they are both talking
about being spiritually poor and not monetarily poor.  Although one could make
a case for the monetarily poor in saying that they are totally dependent upon
God for not only mercy and salvation, but for the hardware of life, like food
and clothing.
_________________
    
    3. What happened to the letter of Paul to the Galatians, "There
       is neither Jew of Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
       is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus"?

	I don't understand what your "contradiction" is here...could you 
explain it?
_________________
    
    4. Judas hangs himself in Matthew, but dies of an accidental fall
       in Acts.

	This is not correct.  Once again, I will stress the need to look at
the Jewish side of the coin.  Remember, all the gospel writers were Jews and
had a Jewish background, not a Greek or Roman philosophical one.

	First of all, Judas killed himself on the Passover, sometime during
the night.  On the morning of the Passover, there was to be a special Passover
sacrifice at 9 AM.  In preparation for this, the high priest was forbidden
to touch or do any unclean thing or he would be rendered ceremony unclean
and unable to perform the sacrifice.  Well, the Jews throughout the ages,
interpreted the Mosaic Law and with that came "other" laws.  For instance,
there were 1500 laws that dealt with what you could and could not do on the
sabbath that were added to the mosaic law around the sabbath.  

	There was a problem and that dealt with what happened if there was a
death inside the temple compound during the Passover.  By law, that death
rendered the temple unclean and would prevent the sacrifice in the morning.  
To get around this problem, the Pharisees adopted another law that stated if 
someone died during Passover inside the temple compound, that the body could be
removed only by throwing it over the western wall of the city(I believe...my 
memory is kindof sketchy, but the principle is intact).  BTW, this was the 
steepest wall around the city.  After doing this, the temple compound was said 
to "clean" and the sacrifice could take place.  

	The deal with Judas was that he did this very thing.  He hung himself
inside the temple compound and when he died, the religious leaders had a 
problem seeing it was the Passover.  So, as was usual practice, they took the
body and dropped it over the wall.  And as you probably guessed it, when Judas
fell down (more like they threw him over the wall), his guts fell out.  As 
would anyones if dropped from such a height.

	Again, because each gospel writer wrote about different aspects that
pertained to their theme, one records the death of Judas.  Luke, the author
of Acts just gives us the results. 

	Seemingly a contradiction, but knowing how the Jews religious system
worked is the key...and might I add, it is very helpful throughout the 
Scriptures.  
_______________
    
    5. The Crucifixion occurs before Passover in John but during Passover
       in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

	I think you are confused here.  There is no question in any of the
Gospels that Jesus was killed on the Passover, but I believe you mean there
is confusion around the Sabbath?  There is a difference.  Another point is
that Jesus had to die on the Passover and at a specific time.  If he died at
any other time, his atonement wouldn't of been complete.  If he could of died
at any other time, he could of just been killed as a kid when Herod gave the
order to kill all the children 2 and under....so the timing of Jesus's death
is VERY important.  Jesus could not die on any day but the Passover.

	If it is a question around the timing of the Sabbath, Jewish reckoning
for a day, or 24 hour period, started from sundown (specifically when 3 stars
were visible...don't ask me what they did on a cloudy night..:-) ), and lasted
until the next sundown.  Also, any part of a day was considered an entire day.

	Let's use 6 PM as an example.  Say the sun went down at 6pm.  That would
begin a new day, and this day would last until 6pm the next day. Any part of
that 24 hour period was considered a day just as any part of a year was 
considered a whole year.  Another example is that of a king and his reign.  
Under Jewish reckoning of time, if the King took his throne in December, he 
would still of been credited as having reigned for the entire year, and not 
just one month.  This can go a long way in explaining the time element around 
the burial and resurrection (Jesus actually resurrected on Saturday night, not 
Sunday morning)...but that is another matter.
    
	Although this doesn't quite answer the contradiction around the
timing of the sabbath, and quite frankly, I would like you to explain exactly
what controversy exists...again, can you pinpoint?  Not necessarily with 
exact verses, although that would help, but with a better idea of the problem
as you see it.
_________________

    6. Some of the apostles are described as witnessing the Crucifixion
       in Luke, but they flee the scene beforehand in Matthew and Mark.
    

	I'm sort of missing the point here too.  Although the apostles flee,
it does not mean all of them left the side of Jesus.  Clearly, Luke states 
that John was present when Jesus directed John to take care of his mother.
So I really see no contradiction.  Apostles did flee, but it does not mean
all.

							bill..g.

Re:  .30

Dave,

You'll have to bear with me if you want responses (from me) on these
issues.  I've been out today and will be out most of the week.  But,
I will respond (if someone doesn't beat me to it) to all of these issues
the best I can.

For anyone awaiting my response, I suggest that patience would be a good
virtue to learn at this time, if you have not already learned it. :-)

Collis

    Collis,
    	no problem. It just seemed (still seems) like someone dropped a
    gauntlet and there was a decided lack of volunteers to pick it up. It
    occured to me that such blatent reticence should be remarked upon. What
    else are gadflies for ? ;')

Re:  .27 questions

  >STEP 1: Does the verse even exist within our Hebrew Scriptures?
 
  >  Example: "Joseph came and resided in a city called Nazareth
  >    that what was spoken through the prophets might be
  >    fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene'." (Matt, 2:23).
  >    Nowhere does such a prophecy appear in our bible.

First I'll note that this is the only quote for which a reference can
not be found.  (Therefore it is misleading to view this as an "example"
rather than an isolated incident.)

Personally, I don't think there is a "good" answer to this problem.  I
agree that this verse is not in the Old Testament that we have today.
Some argue that the Hebrew word "nazer" (nezer? sp?) which means branch
is used in one of the prophets (Isaiah around chapter 60, I think, but
my memory on this is foggy) is the reference that Matthew used, but I
think this argument is weak at best.

The possible explanations (none of which I think are very good) are:

 - Matthew was wrong (i.e. Bible is not inerrant)
 - This was in the Old Testament at one point but we no longer have the
   reference
 - This was not what Matthew wrote
 - A prophet did write this but this writing was not part of the Old
   Testament

Since no answer seems satisfactory to me at this point, I withhold
judgment on the true solution to this difficulty.

  >An effective missionary will work with crude English retranslations 
  >of earlier Greek mistranslations, and will at all costs avoid a look 
  >at the original Hebrew

An effective pastor at the Christian seminary I attended is *required*
not only to look at but *learn* the original Hebrew (and Greek).  If pastors
do not preach the truth, we do a disservice to God.


  >Example: Romans 11:26, the Christian Bible quotes Isaiah as saying, 
  >    "The deliverer will come from Zion, 
  >     he will remove ungodliness from Jacob," 
  >  thus establishing Scriptural support for its view that the Messiah will 
  >  take away our sins.  The original, however, Isaiah 59:20 says exactly 
  >  the opposite: 
  >    "A redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn away from 
  >     transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord." 

Actually, the example above is NOT a "crude English retranslation".  It
is a highly accurate English translation!  The problem is not in the
English translation, the problem is what the verse originally said.

On this verse, the Hebrew manuscript evidence is contradicted by the
evidence of the Septuagint translation of which Paul quotes above.  The
possibilities are:

 - the Hebrew manuscript was corrupted after the Septuagint translation
   (3rd century B.C.)
 - the Septuagint mistranslated Isaiah (and Paul quotes the mistranslation
   in error).

Personally, I believe the first explanation is much more likely to be
the correct explanation.

  >The Messiah's role is not to take away our sins; rather, when we turn away 
  >from our sins, the Messiah will then come.

This view is contradicted just a few chapters earlier in Isaiah (which,
by the way, is no longer read in the Synagogues since it doesn't fit
it with the Jewish theology being expounded above).

Isaiah 53:6  
  All of us like sheep have gone astray,
  Each of us has turned to his own way; 
  But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all 
  to fall on Him.

 
STEP 3: Has the context been distorted?

  >Example: Matthew 1:23 cites Jesus' "virgin birth" as being the fulfillment 
  >  of a prophecy recorded in Isa. 7:14,
  >    "Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a son."
  >  Aside from the inaccurate translation of the word "almah," meaning 
  >  "young woman," not "virgin," we learn from Isaiah 7 that the context is 
  >  that of a prophecy made to King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading 
  >  kings.

This view is contradicted by their own commentaries!  This verse is
seen as having Messianic implications.  (I wish I had references, but
I've not read much of the Jewish commentaries.  This is what I was
taught.  However, someone in Bagels should surely be able to provide
commentary references.)

First off, the word "almah" means "a young woman of marriagable age".
The context determines whether or not the inference of virginity is
correct.  (If you do a word study on this word, it is *clear* that this
word is sometimes used in a context where it is synonomous with "virgin".)
So translating the word "almah" as "virgin" is *not* a mistranslation
since it may have that meaning and, in fact, in the context here is
*likely* to have that meaning.  The context, for those who don't have
a Bible handy is that a "sign" will be given to King Ahaz.  It's not much
of a sign for a "young woman of marriagable age" to have a son!  However,
a virgin having a son is a very clear sign.

The real question we are dealing with here, then, is whether there could
be a dual meaning to what Isaiah said to King Ahaz.  The answer to this
is "yes".  Other Old Testament verses can clearly be shown to have a
dual meaning, so it is not unreasonable for this one to have a deal
meaning as well.  Besides, the Jewish commentaries themselves support this
idea.
 
  >EXAMPLE: In Heb. 1:5, the verse from 2 Samuel 7:14, 
  >    "I will be a father to him and he shall be a son to ME", 
  >  :is said by the "New Testament" author to be a prophetic reference to
  >  Jesus.  But if we look at the verse from 2 Samuel in its entirety, the 
  >  verse doesn't end with the phrase quoted in the "New Testament", but 
  >  continues, 
  >    "When he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men." 
  >  Can this possibly be referring to the "sinless" Jesus of the Christian 
  >  Bible?

Another dual prophecy.  This refers both to the physical sons (kings)
of Judah) who followed Solomon as well as to Jesus.  They are quite right
in pointing out that the reference to iniquity could not possibly be
referring to the sinless Jesus.  Indeed, it is referring to the
physical sons of Solomon who would follow him on the throne.
 
  >STEP 5: Would we view this as a prophecy about Jesus without
  >the aid of the New Testament?
  >     In many cases, the Christian missionaries employ actual
  >messianic prophecies in the conversionary efforts.  These
  >usually take the following form:
     
  >     a. The Hebrew Bible says ____________ about the
  >Messiah.
 
  >     b. The "New Testament" says that Jesus fulfilled this
  >prophecy.
  >     c. Therefore Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
 
  >The flaw in the logic here is that the "proof" only points
  >to Jesus if you already accept the "New Testament."
 
Agreed.  Let's stick to the numerous, clear verses (I'd say 
non-controversial - but there *will* be controversy about *any* verse
that shows Jesus is the Messiah) which clearly show Jesus is the
Messiah when talking with unbelievers.  

Collis

    
    re: Collis
    
    	You are correct in what you are saying about Isaiah 53 and about
    the virgin birth.  One thing that IS clear is that modern Judaism
    is NOT the same Judaism that was present in Christ's day.  I believe
    that the virgin birth matter did not even change until around 1500
    AD when a certain Rabbi gave a different interpretation of Isaiah
    53.  I'll have to check some things tonight and I'll report back
    when I can get it organized.
    
    								bill..g.
    

    .32, on "three days":
    
    We tend to talk about "three days from today", which we count as
    tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that.
    
    I don't know for certain if the Jews of that time did so, but I can
    tell you that Greeks of that period, if they talked about "the third
    day", would tell you that today, while it lasts, is the first day; 
    then you have tomorrow, and the third day is the day after tomorrow.
    
    We exclude today (as being at least partly "used-up"), and count the
    number of whole days;  they began from the present moment, and were
    more willing to count a portion of a day as a whole.  (A possible
    analogy is the numbering of floors in tall buildings, as done in
    America and in Europe.)
    
    Dick

    Colis,
    	I think you are reaching on some of your arguments and the fact
    that you can't answer one at all could throw the whole issue into the
    trash - IF you believe that either the whole thing is good and true or
    the whole thing is a lie. Not being so inclined, it doesn't bother me.
    	On the virgin vs young woman of marriagable age; I believe that the
    two were assumed to be equivalent at the time of writing. A young
    unmarried woman of marriageable age was assumed to be a virgin. This
    status would have been verified prior to marriage. Society VERY MUCH
    frowned on unmarried women (except, perhaps, a handmaiden or two)
    giving birth - and the penalties were severe.
    
    DaveM

    
    Dave, your understanding is the same as mine on this.
    
    Irena
    

    Collis,
    
    Why do you think it's weak that the Matt. 2:23 reference can't be
    alluding to Isa. 11:1 (and/or Zech. 6:12)? As you pointed out, we're
    talking about the Hebrew NESER, which can mean "branch" or "shoot".
    These two verses have Messianic overtones and use NESER.
    
    As for the "virgin" question, I think the clincher is to see what other
    words Isaiah had available to him. The word for a young girl wouldn't
    suit, so to express a virgin he had either ALMA or BETULA. Yes, ALMA
    can be used for either a virgin and/or a young woman of marriageable
    age. However, BETULA, while usually translated "virgin" can denote a
    married woman - see Joel 1:8. So, I believe Isaiah actually was careful
    to avoid any ambiguity by telling us that the woman that was to bear
    the child would be an unmarried virgin of marriageable age. ALMA is
    *always* applied to an unmarried woman, whereas BETULA is not.
    
    	BD�

re Note 27.35 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> First off, the word "almah" means "a young woman of marriageable age".
> The context determines whether or not the inference of virginity is
> correct.  (If you do a word study on this word, it is *clear* that this
> word is sometimes used in a context where it is synonymous with "virgin".)
> So translating the word "almah" as "virgin" is *not* a mistranslation
> since it may have that meaning and, in fact, in the context here is
> *likely* to have that meaning.  The context, for those who don't have
> a Bible handy is that a "sign" will be given to King Ahaz.  It's not much
> of a sign for a "young woman of marriageable age" to have a son!  However,
> a virgin having a son is a very clear sign.

        Collis,

        By what authority do we know what the word "almah" meant at
        the time this passage was written?

        If this is an especially important prophecy, it is important
        to know upon what authority this reading rests.

        Bob

    I also did an exhaustive search through Matthew, finding every
    occurrence where he referred to a prophet or prophecy. Matt. 2:23
    stands unique among them. In all other cases Matthew seems to use a
    particular formula, e.g.
    
         1:22 -> So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which
         was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
    
         2:15 -> and was there until the death of Herod, that it might
         be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the
         prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son."
    
         4:14 -> that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah
         the prophet, saying:
    
         12:17 -> that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
         Isaiah the prophet, saying:
    
    You'll notice that the formula is along the lines of "spoken ...
    saying". This formula holds for every case but one (27:35). More
    significant is the fact that without exception a single prophet is
    referred to, either by name (4:14; 12:17; et al.) or simply by the use
    of the singular noun (1:22; 2:15; et al.).
    
    By comparison, Matthew 2:23 reads ->
    
         And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it
         might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He
         shall be called a Nazarene."
    
         
    Only in 2:23 do we have a break of the formula and an unnamed plurality
    of prophets. I think it's safe to conclude that Matthew was not
    offering a quotation but rather making a general statement regarding
    some well-known Messianic predictions. Therefore the references to Isa.
    11:1 and Zech. 6:12 are appropriate.
    
    	BD�

    
    Here's an interesting genealogical puzzler:
    
    In Genesis 10:24 it states:
    
        "And Arphaxad begat Selah; and Selah begat Eber."
    
    So we see that Eber's father was Selah and Selah father was Arphaxad.
    Got it so far? :)
    
    Now turn to Luke 3:35,36:
    
        "Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which
         was the son of Phalech, which was the son of Heber (Eber), which
         was the son of Sala (Selah), which was the son of *Cainan*, which
         was the son of Arphaxad..."
    
    Here's a very obvious discrepancy which I've never heard a good answer
    to. The Genesis account clearly contradicts the Luke account as to just
    who is Sala (Selah)'s father.
    
    -c.

    re:  .43
    
    Qu� Selah, Selah?
    
    DR

    Connie Francis?  I thought that was Doris Day.
    
    -- Mike

    This is really sad! Here we are, discussing with great solemnity the
    veracities of squiggles penned more than 1800 years ago in a language
    not our own (and mutated nearly beyond recognition) by a people whose
    culture differs from our own, and we can't even agree on who made a
    particular hit record 30 some years ago. Truely SAD !!!  Yes, Mike, it
    WAS the Eternal Virgin, Doris Day, who made that record. What a BUNCH !

    I felt like saying Don! like an exasperated wife when I read that.
    
    :-)

    I'm glad to see Charlie's question. I would have been disappointed to
    think that no one else knew of any apparent errors.
    
    The reality of the genealogies is that the Hebrew translated "begat"
    does *not* mean a direct descendant, e.g. father-son. It can mean that,
    but it also allows for skipping generations. So the best one can do
    when reading the "begats" is know that those listed are in a line of
    descent, but you can't be sure that all generations have been listed.
    
    This is the main problem with the creation date of 4004 BC put forth by
    Bishop Ussher. He simply went through the genealogies and added them
    all up. The problem is that there's no way to tell how many generations
    were skipped in the listings.
    
    	BD�

Re: .48  Barry

Are there other examples in Hebrew literature where the word for "begat" was
used in that way, i.e. where it can skip a generation?

				-- Bob

    RE: .48
    
    Thanks Barry. But looking up the Hebrew for begat ('yalad'), indicates
    that this means 'to be the son of' and nothing in the description seems
    to support the idea of skipping a generation.
    
    Unless you know of some other support for this, it still seems obvious
    to me that this is a discrepancy.
    
    -c.

    	This is in direct reference to reply .27, more specifically
around the word "virgin" as it is found in Isaiah 7:14.

    
    
	There is much spoken about the Messiah in the Old Testament, and a
question was raised about a passage from the prophet Isaiah found in chapt.
7:14.  This verse is speaking of the coming Messiah and uses a term when
translated into English means "virgin".  I will try and give some
detail as well as some background around the use of this word.

	First of all, since the Isaiah passage is dealing with the Messiah's
birth, let's explore a little about that birth in greater detail before 
looking at the Isaiah passage.

	The first mention of the Messiah's birth is given in Genesis 3:15.

	"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
	seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
	his heel."

	This is a picture of future redemption.  Within this passage, the
key is found in the words seed of the woman.  This may not appear to be much,
but when taken in the context of biblical teaching, it is unusual.  We see
in the Hebrew Scriptures that a mans lineage was never reckoned after a
woman.  In all the genealogies in the biblical record, we see that women
are virtually ignored because of their unimportance in determining genealogy
(sorry about that for the women readers, but I didn't write the Book..).
But here we have the person who would crush the head of Satan in the future
to be reckoned not after a man, but a woman.  Following the "normal" Biblical
pattern, this is unusual.

	This passage is clear that the future redeemer comes from the seed of
a woman, and that His birth will only take into account his mother.  For a
reason unexplained here, the father will not be taken into account which is
once again, contrary to the biblical view concerning genealogies.

	Now, the prophet Isaiah sheds some light on why the Messiah would only
be reckoned after the seed of the woman.  Isaiah 7:14 reads:

	"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold a virgin
	shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

	Now, most of the focus of preceding discussions and objections to
this verse stem from the word "virgin", but looking at the entire verse, we
see another clue that is often overlooked.

	We see that Isaiah is stating that the Lord will give you a SIGN.
Here, it is clear that this birth will be some sort of sign.  In other words,
it would follow that somehow this birth would not be normal, rather it would
be unusual.  How else could the requirement of a sign be met?

	It is also interesting to note that the existence of the Jewish people
was due to a specific "sign" of a birth.  In the story of Abraham and Sarah
we are told that Sarah was well beyond childbearing stage (89) and Abraham was
a mere 99 years old.  God promised that Sarah would have a son within one year
and this would be the "sign" that God would keep His covenant with Abraham and
make a great nation from him.  A year later a son was born and named Isaac and
through this son, the Jewish people came.  It was this "miraculous birth" that
was the "sign" needed to authenticate the covenant God had made with Abraham.

	Clearly then, just as Isaac's birth was miraculous and a sign, the
birth of the son in Isaiah 7:14 would also be a sign, and unusual in some way.
Isaiah states that this son's birth would not be unusual through the age of his
mother as was the case with Sarah, but through the fact that he would be born 
of a virgin.

	Now this is where most of the conflict arises, which is around the use
of the word virgin.  The Hebrew word used here is ALMAH.  The objection by
the Jewish community today stems from the fact that they believe ALMAH means
young woman and not virgin.  But at the same time, those who believe this is
the case, fail to explain how this birth would be used as a sign.  A young 
woman giving birth to a baby is hardly unusual.  The word ALMAH is also used
in other Scriptures (Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8) and it is translated there
as meaning "virgin".

	But a more stringent test is that of the 70 Jewish rabbis who 
translated the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint 
around 250 B.C.  These men lived closer to Isaiah's time and thus would be
closer to the original usage of the word.  The 70 rabbis all made the ALMAH
to read PARTHENOS, which means virgin in Greek.  

	Even if the word does mean a young woman it could still refer
to virginal young woman.  The key is that this birth was to be a sign and
an unusual one at that.  If it is taken to mean a virgin birth, Genesis 3:15
now comes into focus.  The reason why the Messiah would be reckoned after a
woman is because he would NOT have a father.  Because of a virgin birth, he
could not be traced through his father (he wouldn't have one), but only 
through his mother.  So, Isaiah 7:14 clarifies Genesis 3:15 stating that the
Messiah will enter the world by means of the virgin birth.

    Sounds like you need some new reference books, Charlie :-). If you were
    to look up YALAD in "The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament"
    you'd find that in there they have (at least) a paragraph about how
    YALAD (and/or its derivatives?) can be used when skipping a generation.
    As a matter of fact there is about an entire page on this, going into
    the metaphorical use of the words as well.
    
    There is other Biblical support for this as well. In 2 Sam. 9:7 we read
    (in the KJV) that both Saul and Jonathan are said to be the father of
    Mephibosheth. (I don't have a Hebrew interlinear to check the original
    language - can anyone help here?) The newer translations change it to
    read "grandfather" (for Saul), but my guess is that the Hebrew is the
    same.
    
    This same idea even carries into the NT. In Luke 3:38 we have the
    familiar genealogical listings and there is no shift when describing
    the "sonship" of each person - right up through God, i.e. "the son of
    ... Adam, the son of God". Obviously Adam's "sonship" to God is quite
    different from the "sonships" of the others in the genealogy, yet the
    same word is used throughout.
    
    Another example can be found in Matt. 1:1 where we read: "Jesus
    Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham". This obviously is
    skipping a few generations.
    
    In summary, it seems clear that the genealogical lists presented in
    both the OT and NT are designed to give us the lines of descent but are
    not so concerned with listing absolutely everyone in that line.
    
    	BD�

    My earlier question that asked for a definition of "error" was not
    entirely rhetorical.  It seems to me that there are many types of
    "errors" that can be discussed here.

    First, one can discuss contradictions between different accounts of the
    same event.  For those who, for whatever reason, might be troubled that
    these contradictions might somehow invalidate the Bible, these
    contradictions are always rather easy to resolve with a little bit of
    creative harmonization.  This involves conceiving a scenario that makes
    both accounts true by having them describe either different events
    altogether, or else different points of time within the same event.  The
    result is that these contradictions are always inherently resolvable for
    anyone with a little imagination, and they never need pose a problem.

    The New Testament accounts various incidents tend to be harmonized in
    this way.  Since there are probably at least five sources for the
    accounts in the four gospels (Q, Mark, Luke-specific material,
    Matthew-specific material, and the Johannine material), this type of
    harmonization is rather common when applied to the life of Jesus. 
    Thus, to cite one example, the different accounts of the anointing of
    Jesus can easily be interpreted as simply referring to two different
    incidents.  The four different descriptions of the resurrection of
    Jesus in the four Gospels require a little more creative effort to
    harmonize, but it can certainly be done using this technique.
    
    As for some of the differences in the Pentateuch, it is rather easy to
    point to the different authors as an explanation.  For example, the two
    different creation myths in Genesis can be seen as having come from P
    and J, and thus need not be harmonized at all.  Similarly, the account
    of Noah's ark can be seen as two different, interwoven, accounts of the
    same legend, and thus explain the differences occur within the same
    tale.  However, for those who, for reasons of theological dogma, reject
    the findings of serious biblical scholarship or who insist that the
    creation and flood myths are literally true, it is easy enough to apply
    this same technique of harmonization.  For example, the second creation
    myth is seen as a recapitulation of the first, as a sort of footnote,
    and both myths are taken literally (the issue of the cosmology implied
    in the Priestly account is another issue altogether).  This type of
    harmonization can also work for any discrepancies between the
    Deuteronomistic history (Joshua to II Kings) and the two books of
    Chronicles 
    
    Aside from contradictions of detail, other classes of "errors" can also
    crop up in discussions of the Bible.  Historical accounts, for example,
    may not jibe with historical, scientific, or archaeological finding.
    There are several responses to these discrepancies, but all rely on the
    premise that science or reason is automatically assumed to be wrong if
    it contradicts the Bible.  In some cases, the simple answer is simply
    to assert that future discoveries may eventually bear out the biblical
    accounts after all. This type of argument can be used when discussing
    the date of the fall of Jericho.  This response makes glossing over the
    discrepancies easy, since no harmonization is even necessary.  The
    other alternative is to assert that science is simply wrong to begin
    with.  The assault on modern biology and biology education, and the
    invention of so-called "creation science" by opponents of evolution, is
    an example of this approach.
    
    Another "error" that can crop up is one of logic.  For example, if the
    sun really stood still once, as the Bible claims it did, this would
    violate many laws of physics.  The answer to this is that God is
    omnipotent and can manipulate any law of physics that "He" (and God is
    inevitably male in these discussions) wants to.  Of course, the
    assumption of divine omnipotence is not something that all theologians
    accept, but that is another story.

    The final category of "errors" that I perceive is that of moral errors. 
    For example, the genocide against the residents of Jericho and Ai that
    is depicted in the book of Joshua, and which is urged by God in
    Deuteronomy, is a fundamental violation of the highest of moral
    principles.  The slaughtering of defenseless children, for example, is
    not something that any human being with a conscience could possibly
    perform.  The defense for this is simply that if the Bible says that
    God ordered it to be done, then it had be done--no questions asked, no
    pangs of conscience need interfere.  Thus even morality is not a
    stumbling block for accepting the inerrancy of the Bible.

    Given all of this, debating the issue of Biblical "errors" can quickly
    become a dead end when premises so fundamental are at stake.  Many
    Christians are not bothered by inconsistencies or "errors" in the Bible
    because they do not adhere to a doctrine of Biblical literalism.  There
    is no need to defend something for which there is no specific emotional
    attachment anyway.  Since my own interest in Christianity doesn't depend
    on the truth of the Biblical creation myths, the fact that they are
    myths is not relevant to my religious explorations.  I don't consider
    the Bible invalid simply because its creation myths are not literally
    true.
    
    Thomas Kuhn, in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions",
    spoke of the process of developing a scientific paradigm.  He pointed
    out that in order for an initial scientific paradigm to develop, the
    scientific community needs to establish a foundation which prevents the
    need for rehashing fundamentals all the time.  The one difficulty in
    applying the concept of paradigm change to theology, which Hans K�ng
    proposes, is that there are really different theological communities
    within Christianity that span across many diverse theological
    foundations.  Given that the understanding of the Bible varies among
    Christians, the discussion of "errors" is going to stem from what are
    essentially different paradigms.  That is why I doubt that any
    discussion of biblical "errors" is not going to arrive at any consensus
    across the various theological tendencies.

    -- Mike

Re:  27.53  Mike

  >In some cases, the simple answer is simply to assert that future 
  >discoveries may eventually bear out the biblical accounts after all. 
  >This type of argument can be used when discussing the date of the fall 
  >of Jericho.  

Of course, the dating of the fall of Jericho has been an *extremely*
prominent example where the archeological evidence (no evidence
of destruction using either the early or late dating method) seemed
to contradict the Biblical evidence.

Fortunately, progress was made on this last year.  Biblical Archeology
Review had a cover story last year that dates the fall of Jericho in
the late 15th century B.C. (early 1400's) which corresponds to the
early date theory.  Apparently the evidence was there before but was
misinterpreted.  I'm still trying to get my hands on the article (several
friends have a subscription.)

Collis

Re:  27.43

It's also interesting to note that the Hebrew word for "son" also can mean
"descendent" and the word for "father" also can mean "ancestor".  As my
Hebrew professor once told me, "Greek is a stifling language where words
and meanings are [comparatively] well-defined.  In Hebrew, however, you
can make something mean most anything! [again, comparatively]"

Collis

    Collis, the recent controversy over the dating of the fall of Jericho
    is why I cited that as an example.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  27.38

Dave,

  >I think you are reaching on some of your arguments and the fact
  >that you can't answer one at all could throw the whole issue into the
  >trash 

Well, let's discuss specifics.  Perhaps your explanations or reasons
are better than mine.  I'm willing to listen.  I've been wrong before.

Actually, what I said on the first issue is that I don't feel that I
have enough data to make an informed decision.  None of the alternatives
(including the alternative of the Bible being in error) seem likely
to me.  I think that the proper course in this situation is to remain
open-minded about what the resolution really is.  Do you think this is
a poor policy?  I certainly *don't* believe that this "throw[s] the whole
issue into the trash".  It admits a problem without an apparent (good)
solution.

  >On the virgin vs young woman of marriagable age

You are quite correct.  Young unmarried women were fully expected to be
virgins in that society.

By the way, another argument for Isaiah's choice of that word is the
dual fulfillment of the prophecy.  Some believe that Isaiah himself married
an "almah", had a son and fulfilled the prophecy in its first form.
The prophecy was given in 735/734, kings changed in 732 and the final
destruction of the Northern kingdom was in 722 (before the age of
accountability which is 13).

Collis

RE:Note 27.52 by DYPSS1::DYSERT "Barry - Custom Software Development" 

    Hi Barry,

    >Sounds like you need some new reference books, Charlie :-). 

    Is this a free offer? :)

    >If you were to look up YALAD in "The Theological Wordbook of the Old 
    >Testament" you'd find that in there they have (at least) a paragraph 
    >about how YALAD (and/or its derivatives?) can be used when skipping 
    >a generation.
    >As a matter of fact there is about an entire page on this, going into
    >the metaphorical use of the words as well.
    
    The only reference that I have for Hebrew is my Strong's. I don't doubt
    that your reference indicates what you say, just that it's odd to me 
    that Strong's overlooks that application and says only, 'the son of'
    and doesn't offer 'or grandson or great-grandson of' as an alternate.

    >There is other Biblical support for this as well. In 2 Sam. 9:7 we read
    >(in the KJV) that both Saul and Jonathan are said to be the father of
    >Mephibosheth. (I don't have a Hebrew interlinear to check the original
    >language - can anyone help here?) The newer translations change it to
    >read "grandfather" (for Saul), but my guess is that the Hebrew is the
    >same.
    
    Yet in the previous verse, it is clearly spelled out who is who. And
    your point about the term 'grandfather' may be at the root of the
    problem seeing as how no term exist in the Hebrew and the verse is
    more than likely more properly rendered 'and Saul thy Grandfather.'

    >This same idea even carries into the NT. In Luke 3:38 we have the
    >familiar genealogical listings and there is no shift when describing
    >the "sonship" of each person - right up through God, i.e. "the son of
    >... Adam, the son of God". Obviously Adam's "sonship" to God is quite
    >different from the "sonships" of the others in the genealogy, yet the
    >same word is used throughout.
    
    I don't take issue with 'sonship' but with the term 'begat'.
    And as would be expected, nothing is 'skipped' here; the purpose of the
    genealogies being to establish a verifiable link with previous ancestry.

    >Another example can be found in Matt. 1:1 where we read: "Jesus
    >Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham". This obviously is
    >skipping a few generations.
    
    Again, the use of the term 'the son of...', I believe, is different 
    than the use of the term 'begat'. It seems that someone can be the 
    son of so_and_so and not necessarily be an immediate descendant, as 
    above. Yet if the above was rendered, 'Abraham begat David' or 
    'David begat Christ', this would seem to be an illogical use and the
    issue I have with the Genesis passage.

    -c.

    

    Re: Note 27.58 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON
    
�    Is this a free offer? :)
    
    Much as I like you, Charlie, I have more books on my shopping list than
    I have money for myself. Maybe you could write to that guy in the
    newspaper that gives away money to folks who make a good case :-).

�    The only reference that I have for Hebrew is my Strong's. I don't doubt
�    that your reference indicates what you say, just that it's odd to me 
�    that Strong's overlooks that application and says only, 'the son of'
�    and doesn't offer 'or grandson or great-grandson of' as an alternate.
    
    Since I know you're familiar with Strong's I wonder why you're
    surprised. The Hebrew and Greek "lexicons" (a real stretch of that
    defintion) it contains are bare-bones. They give minimal etymology and
    (if memory serves) primary pronunciation, but they only have room to
    list the most prominent defintion and/or the literal meaning of the
    term. You really need something a bit more in order to get a better
    appreciation of the language (I've also got Brown, Driver, & Briggs on
    my shopping list if anyone is considering Christmas presents).
    
    	BD�

    Collis,
    	did you truncate my sentence on purpose ?  Or are you one of those
    who feel that every word in the entire Bible is either right or wrong,
    that if one word is wrong then the whole work is invalidated ?  If you
    do then the rest of my statement does become irrelevant.
    	Let's take a look at the instance Mike quoted about "God" telling
    "His people" to slaughter every man, woman and child in a town they
    were about to conquer. When I see this sort of moral problem, I ask
    myself if it was "God" who said it or if it was "the word of God
    according to the priests and prophets". I can accept the offending
    command as being historically accurate without accepting it as being
    "the word of God". May the bloody prists and prophets have found their
    just rewards.
    	Sorry, that may not be the best example. There are many places in
    the Bible where "God has commanded" "God's chosen" to sin. There are
    several places in the Bible - mentioned in earlier replies - where it
    seems that there are internal inconsistencies. There are several
    concepts which require cultural/linguistic analysis to even understand
    that there may be a problem - like the "virgin birth" bit. I think
    those who hold that the Bible must be wholly true lest it be wholly
    false would be well advised to re-structure their faith before they are
    confronted with a choice between their intellectual honesty and that
    faith. You CAN have BOTH, you know. 

Re:  27.60  Dave

  >did you truncate my sentence on...

:-)  

  >...purpose ?

Yes and no.  I did intend to stop the excerpt there, however I did
intend to provide the three dots after to show that it was part of a 
sentence which I left uncompleted.  (This is standard procedure on my
part and any time I don't do this is an oversight.)

  >Or are you one of those who feel that every word in the entire Bible is 
  >either right or wrong, that if one word is wrong then the whole work is 
  >invalidated ?  

I've already said that I believe the Bible is inerrant because IT claims
to be, not because I am dependent on that claim.  However, there is
certainly a case to be made against the Bible if that claim is proven
erroneous.

  >Let's take a look at the instance Mike quoted about "God" telling
  >"His people" to slaughter every man, woman and child in a town they
  >were about to conquer. When I see this sort of moral problem, I ask
  >myself if it was "God" who said it or if it was "the word of God
  >according to the priests and 

Perhaps you can show me, preferably by the Bible, why this command
of God was immoral, wrong or sinful?

  >Sorry, that may not be the best example. There are many places in
  >the Bible where "God has commanded" "God's chosen" to sin. 

Let's deal with them issue by issue.  General claims will *not* enable
you and I to reach a consensus (or anyone else reading this for that
matter).  However, even if we don't end up agreeing on the general
claim at the end, we can still reach agreement on some specifics as well
as grow in our understanding when we deal with specific issues.

  >There are several places in the Bible - mentioned in earlier replies - 
  >where it seems that there are internal inconsistencies. 

"Seems" is an excellent choice of words.  I agree.

  >I think those who hold that the Bible must be wholly true lest it be 
  >wholly false would be well advised to re-structure their faith before 
  >they are confronted with a choice between their intellectual honesty and 
  >that faith. You CAN have BOTH, you know. 

Dave.  Let me state this very clearly here because I want you to understand
exactly where I'm coming from.  It is *** PRECISELY *** because I 
*** INSIST *** on intellectual honesty that I believe the Bible is
inerrant.  It is *** NOT *** because I want to justify my faith or because
I want to justify myself or because I want to justify anything.  It is
because I INSIST on being intellectually honest.  If you'd like to
discuss this, we certainly can.

Seeker of truth,

Collis

2 Samuel 11.1 indicates that kings usually go to war in the Spring.  This
simply is not true.  Such would be the exception.  Military campaigns were
waged, as a rule, after the harvest in the Fall.

Peace,
Richard

    RE:-62
    But Richard,
    
    These were nomadic Kings. In that part of the world, spring was 
    the best time so you could avoid heat and sand storms.
    Not much of a harvest in deserts anyway.-:)
    
    Peace
    Jim

    Re: .63
    
    Jim,
    
    	I would agree were it not for the fact that the events described
    in 2 Samuel 11 pertain specifically to David and Jerusalem, which,
    if I'm not mistaken, was no longer a nomadic community.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Further, spring was the best time to graze animals on the
    new grass, and the time when many animals had new young.
    
    Bonnie

    I still think we're not getting the correct understanding of this
    because of our lack of knowledge about the culture of the people
    and the farming practices of that part of the world. Didn't they
    want to finish Operation Desert Storm before the summer sand storms
    arrived ? Perhaps if we knew a little more about it, we would see that
    spring for them was the best time (poor choice of words here), to have
    a war.

    Peace
    Jim

Contradictions between the Gospels of most import are usually chronological
in nature.  For example, the Last Supper takes place on the first day of
Passover according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, while John places it before
the feast.  The cleansing of the temple, according to the first three
Gospels takes place towards the end of Christ's earthly ministry, while
John places it at the beginning.

Peace,
Richard

	Curiously, the quote attributed to Jesus in Acts 20.35 appears
nowhere in the Gospels.

Peace,
Richard

    re -1
    
    There were several different sects among the Jews who didn't always
    agree as to when the feasts began. I remember reading about a calendar
    used by Qumran people that always placed the beginning of passover on a
    Wednesday I believe. The calendar was originated by none other than
    Ezekiel according to tradition.
    	One  must be careful about assumptions. For example, did Jesus
    cleanse the temple only once and one writer make a mistake?
     Or did Jesus do it twice and only John mentions the first
    instance? Twice makes more sense to me. 
    	At least one of the gospels mentions only one demoniac while another
    mentions two. Perhaps one did most of the speaking and was so much more
    prominant, that the other didn't seem important enough to mention to
    one of the authors.
    Some of the prophecies quoted by Matthew don't match up with anything
    in the Old Testament. It has turned out that they were quotes from
    Messianic collections and were well known paraphrases to Jews of that
    time.
     	If you have a dispositions to doubt there's always something to
    hang on, though.
    
    john	
    	

re Note 27.69 by KARHU::TURNER:

>      	If you have a dispositions to doubt there's always something to
>     hang on, though.
    
        john,

        I suspect that this cuts both ways, i.e., "if you have a
        disposition to believe [in inerrancy] there's always
        something to hang on."

        Bob

    RE:69

    Eighty percent of the quotes and allusions made in the New Testament are
    taken from the Septuagint version of the Bible which includes the 
    Apocrypha. The New American Bible, and the Jerusalem Bibles include 
    the Apocrypha. 

    The King James Bible uses the Hebrew version of the Old Testament
    Bible which does not include the Apocrypha. This is probably why
    some of the quotes of the Old Testament made in Matthew can't be 
    found in the Old Testament of that version.

    
    Peace
    Jim

Just so no one is unintentionally misled...

The Septuagint does indeed include the translation of the Apocrypha.  

The New Testament does indeed quote the Septuagint very frequently.

However, no New Testament author wrote any Scripture quoting the Apocrypha
(either the Septuagint version or any other version).

    RE_1
    Collis,
    	   thanks for that information! I wasn't really sure if the quotes
    in Matthew not found in the King James version of the Old Testament
    were due to it not including the Apocrypha or just that they were in
    the Septuagint only.

    At any rate, I haven't found any OT quotes in Matthew, that aren't 
    in the Old Testament as well. Could the person responsible for bringing
    this up, gives us some of those quotes for us to look at ?


    Peace
    Jim

re.67

	Most often what seems like apparent contradictions in the Bible are
human misunderstanding of the Bible.

	For instance in .67 the human error is to assume that everything in
the Bible that is not chronological is an error. In fact, there are aspects
that are more important than chronology in the Bible. 

But a heart that doubts the authenticity of God's Word will never see this, 
because his/her paradigm doesn't include all the possibilities. To know God's
Word requires that we drop our concepts and contact the living God Himself.

Then will all the "apparent errors" turn to precious gems.

Ace



	

    Re: .74
    
    By saying 'apparent contradictions' and 'human error' and 'you must
    contact god in order to understand the problems' you've locked yourself
    into a very narrow understanding of the bible.
    
    It looks to me like you've added things to explain away problems. So
    that when someone such as myself expresses doubts, you counter with
    'it's a human problem'.
    
    Really...
    
    Pete.

re.75

	I understand.

	However, you reinforce my point...  8*)

	
Regards,
Ace

	

    I like to think of these "explanations" of the errors in the Bible as a
    testimony to the power of human imagination and creativity.  When the
    apologist invents creative explanations about what "must" have happened
    in addition to what was not contained in the text, just so as to
    support a dogma about what *is* contained within the text, we have a
    perfect demonstration of of human creativity (not to mention dogmatism)
    at its fullest.  It's sort of like those Ptomelian epicycles that
    Copernicus overturned.  'Tis better to invent fanciful explanations
    than to let a belief system collapse under the weight of its own
    inconsistencies.  This is true even when the inventions themselves
    would seem to contradict the very dogma in question, namely that the
    Received Truth is wholly and completely contained within the very
    document that is being justified.

    Of course, we are told that those inventive, extra-Biblical
    explanations of what "must" have happened (in order to make what is
    found in the Bible inerrant) in no way constitute an example of human
    interpretation of the Bible.  No way, Jose!  That would mean
    *admitting* the embarrassing proposition that *all* Christians, not just
    the ones who the apologist happens to disagree with, practice biblical
    interpretation in one form of another.  This is a dangerous notion,
    because as we all know, the difference between ordinary and faulty
    human interpretation (which is to be condemned vigorously) and the
    inerrant expression of God's clearly defined Word (which is utterly and
    wholly True) is that the person doing the speaking expresses God's
    word, while anyone who disagrees is imposing an "interpretation". 
    And if the power of human reason produces an answer that we don't like,
    we just chuck reason and proclaim ignorance as a virtue, 'cause that's
    God's will.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

    -- Mike

    --  Mike
    
    :-) X 100
    
    Bonnie

    re  .72
    
    	The book of Jude quotes from the apocraphal book of Enoch.
    Somewhere I read that Jude was almost left out of the canon because of
    that quote.
    
    I don't believe God is on trial in human speech. Any inerrancy
    possessed by scripture can only occur at a level deeper than human
    speech. Without the Spirit of Truth we are basically clueless.
    
    Not all of Matthew's quotes match up to the Septuagint either. I will
    try to get back with an example.
    
    john

Note 27.79    -< The Bible doesn't lie but liers babble about it >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a pretty strong accusation, John, if it is one.  Are you saying
that someone here is a liar babbling about the Bible?

Richard

    Re: .76
    
    Actually, I reinforce your beliefs, if you want it that way.
    
    Nice circle of logic.
    
    Trouble with circles is that they can be enclosing, restrictive and
    inhibit growth.
    
    Pete.

My apologies for my misinformation.  I was aware that Jude was the
only book to quote from non-Scripture (where I define Scripture as
the 66 books of the Bible); I believed that this material was not
part of the Apocrypha.

Indeed, serious questions were raised about Jude because of its
references outside of Scripture.

Collis

    Jude does quote from the works in the Pseudipigrapha, but right off
    hand I don't recall if it quotes from the Apocrypha or not.  The works
    in the Pseudipigrapha that Jude cites are *not* part of the Apocrypha,
    and are not part of the Roman Catholic Bible.
    
    -- Mike

    re .83 (DEMING::VALENZA)
    
>    Jude does quote from the works in the Pseudipigrapha, but right off
>    hand I don't recall if it quotes from the Apocrypha or not.  The works
>    in the Pseudipigrapha that Jude cites are *not* part of the Apocrypha,
>    and are not part of the Roman Catholic Bible.
    
    	I've also heard this said, but I wonder ... It's alleged that Jude
    quoted from the Book of Enoch, but the Book of Enoch is *quite*
    fanciful, with lots of info on fallen angels in the days before the
    flood, about which the Bible itself is almost completely silent.  Could
    we suppose that Jude was quoting from some *other* source (perhaps
    handed down orally, but which was confirmed by direct inspiration) and
    that the writer of the Book of Enoch (books, actually) was familiar
    with the same fragment of pre-flood history, and embellished it heavily
    (i.e., fictitiously) to produce the Pseudepigraphical work?
    
    	As an aside, is it known whether Pseudepigraphical works like the
    Book of Enoch were in existence prior to NT times (so that the likes of
    Jude *could* have quoted from them, if they existed)?
    
    								-mark.

    re .80
    
    If the shoe fits....
    
                       			Why complain if it pinches someone else?
    
    
                                                                          
    john

Re: .85 John

>                -< We don't all agree, so are we all truthful? >-

Why not?  If I say that butter pecan is the tastiest flavor of ice cream and
you say pistachio is the tastiest, is one of us lying?

				-- Bob

    John .85,
    
    I assure you that your shoe is likely to fit me as well as mine
    would fit you.
    
    Richard

re Note 27.85 by KARHU::TURNER:

>                 -< We don't all agree, so are we all truthful? >-
  
        The more important thing is whether we are faithful to the
        One who is True.  We can be that without being in doctrinal
        agreement.

        Bob

The people of the OT wrote with the understanding that the Earth was
flat and the waters not only bordered the dry land, but also ran
underneath dry land, thus explaining the existence of ground water.
In the account of the Great Flood in the Bible, it didn't just rain
for 40 days, it also spewed forth from what was believed to be a limitless
reservoir of water beneath the earth.

Heaven was on the other side of a dome-like partition over the Earth.
The Sun and Moon rose and set over the Earth.  Some ancients perceived
the stars were actually punctures or peepholes through which those in
Heaven could watch the activities here on Earth.

To the extent that these understandings are in error, the Bible is errant
and cannot be taken literally.  We know that the Earth is spherical, not flat.
We know that the Earth rotates, thus giving the illusion of the Sun moving
across the sky(*).  We know that space is mind-boggling in its expanse.

Richard

(*)Our language perpetuates this myth.  Our weather reports often provide
the times of sunset and sunrise, which, of course, the Sun does not do.

    RE: .89 Where in the Bible are those things written?
    
    		Alfred

	Re .89
	
	Richard,

	In ancient times people did believe that the earth was flat. However,
	do the Hewbrew Scriptures back up this understanding?

	Isaiah 40:22 KJV reads "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the
	earth," 

	Also, as a comparison is Job 26:7,10 NWT "He is stretching out the
	north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;","He has
	described a circle upon the face of the waters, To where light ends
	in darkness."

	Looking closely at the Isaiah Scripture we can see that the earth 
	was described as spherical, though with man's limited understanding
	those back then might not have fully understood the implication of 
	this verse. Today, with the advent of modern technology it is easy 
	for us to grasp the understanding of the earth being spherical.
	 

	Phil.

re: Note 27.89 by Richard "Peace: the Final Frontier"

>The people of the OT wrote with the understanding that the Earth was
>flat and the waters not only bordered the dry land, but also ran
>underneath dry land, thus explaining the existence of ground water.

Just a tidbit..."modern" models and analysis indicate that for every river on 
the surface of the earth, approximately 10 times the volume of water flows 
underneath the surface.

I don't know that the Old Testament writers had any strict scientific basis 
for their understanding, but in many cases it was (or can be interpreted) as 
pretty close to what we can now verify.

I do not see this as an argument for Biblical inerrancy.  I believe the Bible
was intended as a sharing of a people's Spiritual relationship with the
Divine, and a remarkable sharing it is. 

Arguments for the rigorous scientific accuracy of the Bible fall very short 
for me.  Yes, there are many amazingly accurate observations about the natural 
world in the Bible.  This, to me, adds a richness and level of detail about 
the lifes the people of Israel lead, yet it is still but an interesting 
tangent to the central theme and focus of the Bible; the developing covanent 
between humanity and God.

I think the scientific prowess of other contemporary cultures, notably African
and Asian, far outshine that of the nomadic Hebrews, which still does not 
detract from the spiritual awareness they were evolving and sharing in their 
stories and writing.  (Perhaps their lack of scientific finesse actually 
fostered their theological exploration?)

Peace,

Jim

Note 27.90

Alfred,

I find it difficult to believe you don't know where these are without
me providing chapter and verse.  But just in case you're serious:

>In the account of the Great Flood in the Bible, it didn't just rain
>for 40 days, it also spewed forth from what was believed to be a limitless
>reservoir of water beneath the earth.

Genesis 7:11

>Heaven was on the other side of a dome-like partition over the Earth.

Genesis 1:1-19

>The Sun and Moon rose and set over the Earth.

Genesis 1:1-19 and Joshua 10:12,13

Richard

Note 27.92

Jim,

>I do not see this as an argument for Biblical inerrancy.  I believe the Bible
>was intended as a sharing of a people's Spiritual relationship with the
>Divine, and a remarkable sharing it is. 

	I hear what you are saying and I agree with you.  I suspect neither
one of us are literalists.

	But if the Bible is 100% inerrant and literally true, having been
dictated in full by an omniscient God, then it would be reasonable to expect
the Bible to contain no more than 0.0 errors.

Peace,
Richard

Re: 421.19

Exodus 20.1-17 is the version of the Ten Commandments with which we're
most familiar.  However, Exodus 34.10-28 also claims to contain the
Ten Commandments.  The two are far from a good match.

Deuteronomy 5.5b-22 does come closer to congruency with Exodus 20.1-17,
but it fails to mention the creation story as the reason for observing
the Sabbath, prefering instead the Exodus story.  There is, of course,
a simple and sound reason for this, one with which many Bible scholars
would concur, but not one which could not but dismissed as so much
speculation.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  27.95

  >However, Exodus 34.10-28 also claims to contain the Ten Commandments.  

At least you and Bishop Spong seem to think so.  Please show me
where the Bible claims that this text is exactly what you define
as "the Ten Commandments".  I can't find it.

  >Deuteronomy 5.5b-22 does come closer to congruency with Exodus 20.1-17,
  >but it fails to mention the creation story as the reason for observing
  >the Sabbath, prefering instead the Exodus story.  There is, of course,
  >a simple and sound reason for this, one with which many Bible scholars
  >would concur, but not one which could not but dismissed as so much
  >speculation.

Indeed, there are a lot of reasons why this may be so - some of
which even match the Bible's claim of inerrancy!  You are welcome
to believe whichever of these reasons you would like.  However,
I think it is inappropriate to cast doubt on the Bible's inerrancy
based on differences which are fully compatible with a belief in
inerrancy.  This is the issue that I see and desire to refute.

Collis

    Re: 27.96
    
    Then, what you are saying is that verses 27 and 28 in Exodus 34 are
    not directly connected to the Decalogue in the verses which immediately
    precede them?
    
    Richard

Re:  27.97
    
  >Then, what you are saying is that verses 27 and 28 in Exodus 34 are
  >not directly connected to the Decalogue in the verses which immediately
  >precede them?

Thank you, Richard.  I had overlooked these verses at the end when I
initially read this.

Let's look at what the Bible says.  In Exodus 34:1

  The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first
  ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first
  tablets, which you broke.

Starting in verse 10, the LORD says many things to Moses which include
some (but not all) of what we commonly refer to as the ten commandments
and covers many different areas.  This concludes with Exodus 34:27-28

  Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in
  accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and
  with Israel."  Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty
  nights without eating bread or drinking water.  And he wrote on the
  tablets the words of the covenant - the Ten Commandments.

Did Moses "write down these words"?  Obviously, they are right here
in Exodus 34.  Did Moses write these words down on the tablets?
From this passage, it is not clear.  It says that Moses wrote
down the "words of the covenant - the Ten Commandments" on the tablets.
Were these words in Exodus 34 the Ten Commandments?  Well, that's
exactly what we're trying to determine!  An analysis of this passage
raises the very question that we are asking.  Since this passage
doesn't clearly tell us (although the commands in Exodus 34 suggest that 
these are not the Ten Commandments because of their nature), we need
to review other passages in the Bible.  These passages indicate that
Exodus 34 does not contain the Ten Commandments.

Collis

    Re: .98
    
    Yes, that is one way of looking at it.  But there is another way
    also.  Some scholars contend that Exodus 34 contains the original
    covenant - the Ten Commandments.  The other 2, which contain ethical
    commandments, and with which we are more familiar, came later.
    
    In fact, many scholars claim that Exodus is older than Genesis.
    
    Richard

Re: .95

>Deuteronomy 5.5b-22 does come closer to congruency with Exodus 20.1-17,
>but it fails to mention the creation story as the reason for observing
>the Sabbath, prefering instead the Exodus story.  There is, of course,
>a simple and sound reason for this, one with which many Bible scholars
>would concur, but not one which could not but dismissed as so much
>speculation.

Nobody has asked what that "simple and sound reason" might be.

Well, a reasonable answer is that the author of Deuteronomy had never
heard the creation story.

Peace,
Richard

>>Deuteronomy 5.5b-22 does come closer to congruency with Exodus 20.1-17,
>>but it fails to mention the creation story as the reason for observing
>>the Sabbath, prefering instead the Exodus story.  There is, of course,
>>a simple and sound reason for this, one with which many Bible scholars
>>would concur, but not one which could not but dismissed as so much
>>speculation.
>
>Nobody has asked what that "simple and sound reason" might be.
>
>Well, a reasonable answer is that the author of Deuteronomy had never
>heard the creation story.

    An other is that often times there are several good reasons for
    doing something. I know people who have parties on Dec 25 to
    celebrate Jesus' birth. Or their childs birth. Either is a good
    reason and neither means the other is any less valid.

    		Alfred

	There are simply too many incongruencies between the birth accounts
found in Matthew and Luke to be overlooked and both still called wholly
accurate.

Richard

>	There are simply too many incongruencies between the birth accounts
>found in Matthew and Luke to be overlooked and both still called wholly
>accurate.

	One follows the fathers tree the other the mothers. I would hope
	they were not the same. :-)

				Alfred

True, the geneologies do not match, at least, not precisely.  But it's
more than the geneologies.

Once one understands what each was trying to accomplish in their versions
of the Gospel, it becomes crystal clear why Matthew and Luke do not agree.

Matthew					Luke
-------					----
Wandering star				
Wisemen (astrologers)			Shepherds
Herod orders infanticide of males
Birth in house				Birth in manger
Joseph warned in dream
Family flees to Egypt			Family presents Jesus for circumcision

Richard

  >Matthew:  birth in house

It is exactly this type of lazy "scholarship" that Bishop
Spong practices throughout the entire book.  We saw it
before in the 10 commandments; he reads the account and
then he makes unsupported assumptions about what must have
happened - then he uses those assumptions to attempt to
prove that the Bible is inaccurate!

Where in Matthew is a birth in a house mentioned?  I'm
looking for it.  I can't seem to find it anywhere.

You'll have to show the discrepency between the other events;
there is no obvious discrepency (i.e. it is very easy to
create a scenerio where they all happened as recorded.  In
fact, the Christmas story as is often told fits all the recorded
facts in without a problem.)  The only conflict was the place 
of birth (house or manger) and this is a conflict only in Bishop
Spong's imagination.

Collis

    There is no contradiction between different accounts in the Bible that
    a little creative harmonization by the faithful can't resolve.  That's
    the beauty of it; it is always possible to invent scenarios that
    include additional events, not themselves recorded in the Bible, that
    manage to tie everything together.
    
    -- Mike

Collis .105,

Matthew 2:11 (TEV)

	They went into the *house*, and when they saw the child with
	his mother Mary, they knelt down and worshipped him.  They
	brought out their gifts of gold, frankencense and myrrh, and
	presented them to him.

Now, there are a number of possible explanations here.  1) I have a
lively imagination and I made this verse up.  2)  I've gotten a hold
of a bad translation.  3) This event took place after Mary and Joseph
and Jesus moved out of the manger, though Matthew seems to have failed
to incorporate this possibility into his Gospel.  4) Matthew had a
different agenda than Luke.  5) It is easy to explain away this apparent
contradiction by simply shuffling the details like a deck of cards.
6) All of the above, except number 4.

Richard

Note 27.105

>It is exactly this type of lazy "scholarship" that Bishop
>Spong practices throughout the entire book.  We saw it
>before in the 10 commandments;

I have checked Spong's assertions about the 10 Commandments against
"The Interpreter's Commentary on the Bible," and a book entitled
"Understanding the Old Testament."  Both reinforced Spong's understanding.

Richard

    I have always believed that the wise men visited with Jesus quite
    some time after his birth. A year is the length of time usually
    heard though I don't know how it is arrived at. Though of course
    as Herod had all babies 2 and under killed it would appear that
    he believed Jesus "hadn't been born yesterday." I believe it was
    assumed that the star appeared at Jesus' birth and that it took
    the wise men some time to get  there.

    Do I believe an honest scholar would state that this verse contradicts the
    story of Jesus being born in a stable? Not a chance. 

    		Alfred

Re:  27.107

  >Matthew 2:11 (TEV)

  >They went into the *house*, and when they saw the child...

My apologies.  I only looked in the area of the birth narrative.

By the way, the NIV translates this verse:

  >On coming to the house, they saw the child...

Either translation is possible (Greek preposition eis).

  >3) This event took place after Mary and Joseph and Jesus moved out of 
  >the manger, though Matthew seems to have failed to incorporate this 
  >possibility into his Gospel.

I view this as a very misleading statement since:

  - It is clear that none of the gospels say everything that could
    be said.  (In fact, John makes it clear how little has been
    said.)
  - Why would Matthew mention the birth in the manger in relationship
    to a visit from wise men which was apparently a completely seperate 
    event?  (They didn't just jump into their Lear jet.  :-) )  In
    other words, there is no "possibility" to "incorporate" since there
    is no discrepency in Matthew's Gospel or, for that matter, in either
    gospel when both are examined together.

You forgot a point:

  7)  If you look at all the facts and make *normal* assumptions,
      there is no contradiction to explain since everything fits in.

Alfred is quite right.  You really have to stretch to find any
discrepencies, a stretch not worthy of a scholar basing his analysis
on logic.  Now, you could say that Bishop Spong has an agenda that
he is pushing...  No, you'd probably rather say that Bishop Spong wrote
this book from altruistic motives.  He's just doing this for the good
of everyone else with no thought of himself.  Certainly bashing
those who disagree with him would never be a reason...

Collis

    
    RE: .110 Collis
    

  >- It is clear that none of the gospels say everything that could
  >  be said.  (In fact, John makes it clear how little has been
  >  said.)
  
    
    This is very interesting to me.  I wonder just *what* was not said,
    and even more interestingly....*why*?
    
    Carole
    

        To me, the more relevant issue is not Biblical inerrancy but
        whether those who apply the Bible are guaranteed
        inerrancy/infallibility in that application.

        For example, when I deny a job to practicing monogamous
        homosexual, am I right to do so?  Am I making the morally
        correct choice?

        Bob

    Here's the way I figure it.

    Joseph and Mary left their home in Nazareth and visited Bethlehem.  They
    didn't have a place to stay, because all the inns were full.  This was
    a problem, because God was inducing Mary to feel labor pains, having
    impregnated her with His holy sperm a full nine months earlier.  Mary
    gave birth that night.  The next day, Joseph went shopping to take
    advantage of the after-Christmas sales, decided that he liked the
    place, and said, "Honey, let's buy a summer cottage in Bethlehem." 
    Mary said, "You're a carpenter, Joe; why don't you just build it?"  And
    Joe said, "I can't do that, I have a thriving business in Nazareth to
    take care of."

    After they circumcised their bouncing baby boy, they went back to
    Nazareth to live.  It was a normal family in virtually every way,
    except for the fact that every time Mary tried to give Jesus a bath he
    would crawl on the bath water.  A year later, for Jesus's birthday, they
    decided to take a vacation in Bethlehem.  They went to their vacation
    cottage for the first time.  Meanwhile, the wise men, who had been
    traveling all this time, finally arrived in town, having followed a
    mysterious star that had been hanging over the city for the past year. 
    When they got to town, the star hovered ever lower until it plopped
    itself right above Joe and Mary's summer cottage.  As you might
    imagine, this was a tiny star, as stars go; its thermonuclear reactions
    were under careful divine control, and in size it was nowhere near the
    size of, say, Antares or Betelgeuse (if it had been that big, it would
    have burned Jesus to a crisp, thus ruining the whole point of his being
    born in the first place.)

    After that, things proceeded more or less normally for the family,
    except for the occasional awe-inspiring feat of theological wisdom
    expressed by the adolescent Jesus.  Then Jesus turned 30, and things
    really got interesting.  But that's another story.

    -- Mike

    Mike - 
    
    You've been reading too much "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" lately,
    haven't you?  ;-)
    
    Nanci

    :-) :-)

Another question must be asked:  Does this make sense or are we forcing it
to make sense?  (Another way to phrase it might be, "Would it hold up in
a court of law?")

Luke has the family in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus birth for his
circumcision.  If what Alfred speculates is so, then they must have
gone back to Bethlehem in order to fulfill what Matthew says.  Of course,
Luke makes no hint of the splendid events that took place on this
theoretical second trip.  It could be that Luke knew that Matthew had
already covered this and so decided not duplicate it.  However, there
are many, many other instances where Luke did decide to mirror Matthew,
and Mark, for that matter.

Now, there exists no secular verification of the slaughter of male first-born
children allegedly ordered by Herod.  What we do know about Herod is less than
endearing, and he was certainly capable of such an heinous edict.  However,
the story curiously echoes the story of the baby Moses, which would certainly
have impressed a Jewish audience.

Peace,
Richard

>Luke has the family in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus birth for his
>circumcision.  If what Alfred speculates is so, then they must have
>gone back to Bethlehem in order to fulfill what Matthew says.  Of course,

	Nazerath is 3-4 days walk from Bethleham. One can make a round trip
	by foot between Jerusalam and Bethleham in a day. It is highly
	unlikely that the family went to Nazerath between Jesus birth and
	his circumcision as that is usually done within days after birth.
	And in fact, the census period was probably a matter of weeks not
	hours or days. So several trips to/from Jerusalem are possible and
	likely. There would be little need to report on all of them.

				Alfred

    It's awful tough stretching four disparate versions of the same stories
    to prove inerrancy.
    
    Mike, I like your story myself.
    
    
    Patricia

Matthew 2.1 indicates that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  In my version
the next words are "Soon afterward" the astrologers came to Jerusalem.
Now, it has been postulated that by the time the entourage actually
found Jesus, as much as 2 years from Jesus' birth could have passed.
According to the same chapter, the men from the East knew they were
headed to Bethlehem, but perhaps they simply took their sweet time getting
from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, or maybe "soon afterward" just doesn't mean
what it used to mean.

Now according to Luke, Jesus was presented for circumcision at the Temple
in Jerusalem when he was only days old.  Something that Matthew failed to
mention.  And in Luke 2.39, it says from there the family went to their
hometown of Nazareth, not to Bethlehem and from there on to Egypt.

Doubtlessly, there is some rationalization to explain away all these apparent
inconsistencies.  But if God really dictated the writing of all this stuff,
it seems like God could have been a whole lot clearer.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    Certainly Alfred's thesis is what is generally taught in mainline
    churches -- which are *not* Biblically literalistic.  This does not prove
    that all of the events *did* happen, merely that they were possible.
    In fact, there may be more reason to believe the Magi story than the
    angel story, but timewise both *could* have occurred. :-)
    
    I must say I found the picture of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus "moving out
    of the *manger* amusing!"  The manger was the *feeding trough* that
    held the hay for the animals.  It served as a bed for Jesus, but I
    doubt that it was large enough for Mary to get into even to give birth,
    much less large enough to "house" the little family!  What hilarious
    images you do conjure up for me sometimes! 8'}
    
    We assume the manger was in the barn or cave that housed the animals...
    and that provided a "room" for Mary, Joseph, and Jesus.
    
    Peace,
    Nancy
    
    

    Re: .120
    
    Ahh!  And all this time I thought a manger was something akin to a
    menage, a place where one kept one's domestic menagerie! &^}  Too
    many Christmas cards and animated cartoons, I guess.
    
    Okay, Nancy, your point is well taken.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re:  27.111

    >>- It is clear that none of the gospels say everything that could
    >>  be said.  (In fact, John makes it clear how little has been
    >>  said.)
  
  >This is very interesting to me.  I wonder just *what* was not said,
  >and even more interestingly....*why*?
    
Well, we know why John said what he did say - that you and I can
*know* that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that by believing
in Him, we can have eternal life.

If we missed the main message, then John's reason for writing
has failed.

Since no one has infinite time to write infinite messages in
infinity detail, we all have to choose exactly what we'll say
in limited space.  John made clear his primary criteria.  I don't
know his secondary criteria and could only speculate.

Collis

Note 27.105

>It is exactly this type of lazy "scholarship" that Bishop
>Spong practices throughout the entire book.

Note 27.109

> -< you don't expect us to take this book seriously do you? >-

Note 27.110

>Now, you could say that Bishop Spong has an agenda that
>he is pushing...

I've tried to keep Spong out of this string, but since he keeps getting
undue credit and/or discredit from both Collis and Alfred, I shall go
ahead and post exactly what he says on the portions of Matthew and
Luke in question.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .28

    This note was entered in 1990, but I just noticed it....

    >> throne by tracing Jesus' ancestry through His legal father. The Bible
    >> tells us in Genesis (3:15) that Jesus would be the "Seed of the woman".

    I assume that you mean Genesis Chapter 3, verse 15, right?  If so, I
    don't understand.  The bibles I have handy (King James and New Revised
    Standard Version) both show this verse as God talking to the serpent
    and, I always thought, saying women will always hate snakes.  

    (I don't pay much attention to who wrote which note, so I have no idea
    if Barry Dysert is still around.  So please, anyone who can explain
    this, please feel free.)

    Debby

Re:  27.125

    >> throne by tracing Jesus' ancestry through His legal father. The Bible
    >> tells us in Genesis (3:15) that Jesus would be the "Seed of the woman".

  >I assume that you mean Genesis Chapter 3, verse 15, right?  If so, I
  >don't understand.  The bibles I have handy (King James and New Revised
  >Standard Version) both show this verse as God talking to the serpent
  >and, I always thought, saying women will always hate snakes.

No, only a literalist would believe that.  :-)

I wish I had my on-line Bible to check references.  However, the
serpant is commonly accepted as being Satan himself.  I expect that
the Bible identifies the serpant as Satan somewhere, but I don't know
where off the top of my head.

I have also heard (although I do not have any references) that
this verse was understood as a Messianiac prophecy long before
the Messiah (i.e. Jesus) came.

Collis

Re:  .125

It's just that Bishop Spong is easy to pin down.  You're
referring to material from him book and arguing that it
is reasonable.  I'm dealing with the source and arguing
not only about the material itself, but about the reason
for the material.  As has been pointed out elsewhere in
this conference, it's good to have a clear perception of
not only what is being discussed, but who it is that's
pushing the discussion.

It helps, for example, to read my name in the "Author:"
location and immediately discount what I say as having
any possibility of being right.  :-)  (unless, of course,
it's one of those occasions I'm agreeing with someone
with a significantly different perspective)

Collis

P.S.  It is because of the author that I trust what the
Bible says.

	"There was no manger in Matthew's story of the wise men,
there was no stable, and there was no journey by Joseph and Mary
from Nazareth to Bethlehem for a taxation enrollment.  In Matthew's
Gospel Mary and Joseph lived in a house in Bethlehem over which a
star could stop.  They were not travelers to that city from a
distant place.  The holy family went to live in Nazareth, according
to Matthew, only because Herod's bother Archelaus had taken his
brother's place on the throne in Judea and might continue his brother's
murderous vendetta to destroy the newborn king.  Luke said quite
specifically that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before they
journeyed to Bethlehem.  Someone was wrong.

	This discrepancy is not an example of a paradox, as one
theologian tried to maintain in a review of one of my books.  A
paradox is a profound truth that embraces contradictions that can
neither be reconciled nor dismissed, so they have to be held in
tension.  These narratives involve, I believe, simple facts that
are contradictory and irreconcilable.  Joseph and Mary either lived
in Nazareth, as Luke asserted, or they lived in Bethlehem, as
Matthew believed.  They either returned to their home in Nazareth,
as Luke informs us, or they by chance happened upon Nazareth in
fulfillment of divine prophesy, as Matthew has related.  Both Evangelists
may be wrong on these facts, but both Evangelists cannot be right.  If one
is right the other is wrong.  Biblical inerrancy is once again a casualty
of a mutually exclusive contradiction.

	The pain of literalism does not stop here.  Luke tells us that
on the eighth day of his life Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21) and
that on the fortieth day of his life Jesus was presented in the Temple
in Jerusalem.  Only then, when this family group in faithful Jewish
obedience had accomplished in a rather leisurely fashion all of these
things required by the Law, did they return into Galilee "to their
own city Nazareth" (Luke 2:39).  While there liturgical acts were being
performed in Jerusalem and while they were returning peacefully to their
home in Nazareth, according to Luke, Matthew said Mary, Joseph, and Jesus
were fleeing into Egypt, and only after the death of Herod were they able
to risk returning to their Bethlehem home and even felt that to be too
dangerous, so they journeyed on into Galilee to settle in Nazareth.  One
cannot be in Jerusalem and in Galilee and in Egypt at the same time.
Someone is wrong.  Maybe both Evangelists are wrong, but certainly both
of them cannot be right.  Biblical inerrancy, no matter what televangelists
proclaim, is a logical impossibility."

				- Bishop John Spong
				  "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism"

Note 27.127

>It's just that Bishop Spong is easy to pin down.

Doubtlessly, you and Spong would both enjoy a grand verbal sparring
match were the two of you ever to have the opportunity.

>You're
>referring to material from him book and arguing that it
>is reasonable.

This is an erroneous assumption on your part, Collis.  I was speaking
for myself.  Spong's arguments are infinitely more logical and informed
than my own.  When I use a argument from Spong, I will make that clear
that that is what I am doing.

I submit that, because you have also read parts of Spong's book, when
you read something here I wrote that looked vaguely like something Spong
said, you assumed it came directly from Spong.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 27.126 by COLLIS::JACKSON:

> I wish I had my on-line Bible to check references.  

        Check out note 185.16 -- as long as you can send and receive
        mail, you can search the scriptures.

        Bob

Note 421.145

>Just for your information, the study and acceptance of historical
>documents is *totally different* than the requirements in a court
>of law.  Essentially, the historical document is given the benefit
>of the doubt.  The measuring stick you are suggesting is not the
>measuring stick that historians use (and should use).

Collis,

	That's nice to know.  However, in this case, I don't believe
this information de-legitimizes other ways of evaluating the evidence.

Richard

Re:  27.124

  >The holy family went to live in Nazareth, according to Matthew, only 
  >because Herod's bother Archelaus had taken his brother's place on the 
  >throne in Judea and might continue his brother's murderous vendetta 
  >to destroy the newborn king.  Luke said quite specifically that Mary 
  >and Joseph lived in Nazareth before they journeyed to Bethlehem.  
  >Someone was wrong.

Yes, someone is wrong.  Bishop Spong is wrong.  *Matthew* does not
assume Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem; *Bishop Spong assumes
that.  *Matthew* does not assume that the *only* reason Joseph went
to Nazareth was to avoid persecution, *Bishop Spong* assumes that.
It is quite true that this is the only reason Matthew gives.  However,
Matthew nowhere clearly asserts that this is the *only* reason for
choosing Nazareth.  Again, Bishop Spong makes unwarranted (and untrue)
assumptions - and then questions the truth of the Bible based on his
own flawed logic.

For someone who doesn't want us to believe what is "literal", Bishop
Spong goes to great lengths to believe not only what is literally
there, but those things which are not literally there as well.

  >Joseph and Mary either lived in Nazareth, as Luke asserted, or they 
  >lived in Bethlehem, as Matthew believed.

Is Bishop Spong a mind-reader?  How does he know what Matthew believed?
Matthew doesn't assert it.  Bishop Spong is evidently aware of this
since he is more than willing to claim that Luke asserts they lived
in Nazareth.  No, it is Bishop Spong who asserts this and then proclaims
that Matthew *believes* this.  It just doesn't wash.

The point is this.  If you're going to attack literalism based on 
what it claims, then you have to use the rules of literalism when
attacking it.  Bishop Spong attacks literalism not based on the rules
of literalism, but based on his own version of literalism.

I think we're all happy to agree with Bishop Spong that his version
of literalism is a complete failure.  However, the literalist's version
of literalism has much to recommend it.  Best yet, is the inerrantist's
point of view.  :-)

Collis

re: Note 27.131 by Collis "The Word became flesh" 

>  *Matthew* does not assume ...

>  *Matthew* does not assume ...

>  Is Bishop Spong a mind-reader?  How does he know what Matthew believed?

Well, no he's not.  Who is?  How do you know what Matthew did or did not 
assume?  .-)

We only have the written word of these people who were inspired by their 
relationship with God to share their perspective.

Peace,

Jim, who has not read Spong's book.

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 831.97      Belief in Virgin Birth Required for Salvation?        97 of 104
GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"                      41 lines   1-FEB-1994 18:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .93 Jack

>    Jesus could not be a blood descendent of Joseph because of the curse
>    I brought up some entries back.
    
If Matthew invented a virgin birth he could also have invented the
genealogy that included Joseph's cursed ancestor.  I think it's clear that
Matthew and Luke said that Mary was a virgin, and that they thought that
Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to fulfil the prophesy.  If in
fact Mary was not a virgin then Matthew and Luke were wrong, so everything
else they said about Jesus's birth is also suspect.

The curse that you mentioned is interesting, because in the Revised
Standard Version at least the names don't match up very well.  Jeremiah
22:24-30 says that the cursed applies to the offspring of "Coniah the son
of Jehoiakim, king of Judah".  According to 2 Kings the son of Jehoiakim
who became king after him was Jehoiachin.  Were Coniah and Jehoiachin the
same person, or was Coniah the brother of Jehoiachin?

Some of the details don't match between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, by the
way.  2 Kings says that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became
king (24:8), and that he was succeeded by his uncle Zedekiah (originally
named Mattaniah) (24:17), while 2 Chronicles says that Johoiachin was
eight years old when he became king (36:9) and was succeeded by his
brother Zedekiah (36:10).

According to Matthew, Joseph was descended from "Josiah the father of
Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon".
Is Jechoniah the same as the Coniah in Jeremiah and the Jehoiachin in 2
Kings?  But Jeremiah says that Coniah was the son of Jehoiakin, who was
the son of Josiah, so Coniah was the grandson, not the son, of Josiah.

Further confusion: Matthew says that Jacob was the father of Joseph (1:16)
while Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli (3:23).  Yes, I know, the
inerrantists claim that Joseph was really the son-in-law of Heli and that
in the language of the day it was common to say "son" when you meant
"son-in-law".  That's a nice theory, but I'd like to see other examples of
when "son" really meant "son-in-law".

				-- Bob

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 831.98      Belief in Virgin Birth Required for Salvation?        98 of 104
GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"                      11 lines   1-FEB-1994 19:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .97 (me)

>Were Coniah and Jehoiachin the
>same person, or was Coniah the brother of Jehoiachin?

According to 1 Chronicles 3:17 the sons of Jehoiakim were Jeconiah and
Zedekiah.  It seems reasonable that Jeconiah is the same as Coniah, and
since Jehoiachin was the first born son of Jehoiakim it follows that
Jehoiachin and (Je)Coniah were the same person.

				-- Bob

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 831.103     Belief in Virgin Birth Required for Salvation?       103 of 104
PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "DCU fees?  NO!!!"           32 lines   2-FEB-1994 10:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  >The curse that you mentioned is interesting, because in the Revised
  >Standard Version at least the names don't match up very well.  Jeremiah
  >22:24-30 says that the cursed applies to the offspring of "Coniah the son
  >of Jehoiakim, king of Judah".  According to 2 Kings the son of Jehoiakim
  >who became king after him was Jehoiachin.  Were Coniah and Jehoiachin the
  >same person, or was Coniah the brother of Jehoiachin?

Names not matching up well happens all over the place.  However, it
rarely indicates a problem in the history; it much more frequently
indicates something else such as multiple names, multiple spellings,
etc.

  >Some of the details don't match between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, by the
  >way.  2 Kings says that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became
  >king (24:8), and that he was succeeded by his uncle Zedekiah (originally
  >named Mattaniah) (24:17), while 2 Chronicles says that Johoiachin was
  >eight years old when he became king (36:9) and was succeeded by his
  >brother Zedekiah (36:10).

If you want to post this in a different note, I'll try to take
a look at it for you to see if there is a reasonable explanation.

  >so Coniah was the grandson, not the son, of Josiah.

The Hebrew word translated "son" also means "descendent".
 
  >That's a nice theory, but I'd like to see other examples of
  >when "son" really meant "son-in-law".

So would I.  Any scholars around here?

Collis

Another discrepency:

Mathhew says that Josiah was the father of "Jeconiah and his brothers".
1 Chronicles 3:16 says that the sons of Jehoiakim (son of Josiah) were
Jeconiah and Zedekiah, so Jeconiah had only one brother.  But it's more
likely that Zedekiah was actually Jeconiah's uncle, as in 2 Kings, since
both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles say that Zedekiah was older than Jeconiah
(so why did Jeconiah become king?).  This means that Jeconiah actually had
no brothers.  Maybe he had brothers who weren't mentioned in the Bible,
but in that case why did Matthew go out of his way to mention Jeconiah
"and his brothers"?  Could Matthew have been confusing Jeconiah (Jehoiachin)
with Jehoiakim, who did have famous brothers?

				-- Bob

Sorry to not have gotten to this.  I will look at these
at home over the next few days.

Collis