Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward 109 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Seeker

  And the "good reason" would be?...
• 

  gumby

  I'm hoping JosephAlward will write a book soon and we can all follow him as our new spiritual guru.
• 

  JosephAlward

  What follows below is an adaptation of the article, “Matthew’s False Prophetic Pattern,” which I wrote in 1998; it should make clearer exactly why Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus is wrong, and why he may have deliberately faked it.

  ..................................................................

  Because creation lasted six days and god rested on the seventh, the number “seven” is perhaps the most sacred in the Old Testament. Likewise, multiples of seven are part of what Old Testament writers regarded as a “divine arithmetic.” Thus, one speaks of a “week” of days, or a “week” of years (seven years). The prophet Daniel, for example, predicted that there would be a period of seventy weeks (490 years) from the end of the Babylonian exile until the coming of the messiah (Daniel 9:24-27). Randel Helms, author of Gospel Fictions (Prometheus Books, page 46-47), explains why Matthew at 1:1-17 lists three groups of fourteen descendents stretching from Abraham to Jesus:

  Fourteen equals two "weeks" of generations, and three two week periods (14 +14+14) equal six 'weeks' of pre-Christian generations in the royal line of Israel; thus, with Jesus begins the seventh, the 'sabbath' week of Jewish monarchical history--the kingdom, restored under Christ.

  As we shall see below, Matthew, apparently in a misguided belief that Jesus' genealogy should contain a prophetic numerical pattern based on divine "weeks," forced the second group to have two weeks (fourteen) of names by simply omitting three names. Before I show Matthew’s list at 1:1-16, I’ll show a partial list of descendents from 1 Chronicles 3:9-15. Three of the names are underlined; I will refer to these later.

  1 David
  2 Solomon
  3 Rehoboam
  4 Abijah
  5 Asa
  6 Jehoshaphat
  7 Jehoram
  8 Ahaziah
  9 Joash
  10 Amaziah
  11 Uzziah
  12 Jotham
  13 Ahaz
  14 Hezekiah
  15 Manasseh
  16 Amon
  17 Josiah
  (1 Chronicles 3:9-15)

  Now, here is Matthew’s fake list; note the absence of the names underlined above:

  A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac…the father of [skip ahead to David…]

  1 David
  2 Solomon
  3 Rehoboam
  4 Abijah
  5 Asa
  6 Jehoshaphat
  7 Jehoram
  …………(missing Ahaziah)
  …………(missing Joash)
  …………(missing Amaziah)
  8 Uzziah
  9 Jotham
  10 Ahaz
  11 Hezekiah
  12 Manasseh
  13 Amon
  14 Josiah

  Jeconiah…at the time of the exile to Babylon

  Thus there were fourteen generations in all….from David to the exile to Babylon.. (Matthew 1:1-17)

  
  The Old Testament shows that from David until the carrying away into Babylon are seventeen generations, not fourteen. The three names underlined in the 1 Chronicles genealogy seem to have been deliberately snipped out to fit the imagined or hoped-for prophecy pattern. Apologists sometimes argue that Matthew did what apologists mistakenly and hopefully think was “common” in those days—omitting descendents who were “unimportant.” However, even if this practice was common (it wasn’t), it is not as if these men were not important; all three of them were kings, and all three were in the line of descendency to the son of God—if you can believe Matthew. How could these three not be important?

  We will perhaps never know whether Matthew deliberately omitted the three names from his genealogy, or whether the sources upon which he based his writings were incomplete or corrupted. Either way, it is evident that there were not fourteen generations from David to the time of the exile into Babylon; there were seventeen.

  Once again, we see that the Bible is in error.

  By the way, the problem with Matthew’s list is more severe than what is described here, but I’ve chosen to simplify the argument so that apologists might better be able to focus their attention on one problem at a time. Experience teaches that apologists seize every opportunity to obfuscate when they find they’re unable to harmonize a Bible difficulty, and the more complicated the skeptic’s argument is, the more hiding places there are for the Bible believer. A full exposition of the problem is found at the URL listed below:

  * http://members.aol.com/JAlw/prophetic_pattern.html
• 

  pomegranate

  Well Joe, you seem to be confused with your own evidence here, and I'm am going to only touch on SOME of the contradiction you are presenting:

  Joe just said in this post:

  The Old Testament shows that from David until the carrying away into Babylon are seventeen generations not fourteen.

  Yet Joe's site plainly says:

  The Old Testament shows that from David until the carrying away into Babylon are eighteen generations, not fourteen.

  Clue us all in, where do you really stand, is it seventeen like you just said or eighteen as your site article says? You are severely contradicting yourself.

  Also, Joe intially comes in saying that the Matthew account is missing four CONSECUTIVE names, which included Azariah:

  The Matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts Uzziah, who he says is Jehoram’s son.

  And he states in his very first post that the FOUR CONSECUTIVE names missing in Matthew as being the underlined, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah and Azariah.

  After my proof that Azariah and Uzziah are the same guy, Joe retracts his ridiculous postulation, and basiclly says "I knew that, I was just checking to see if you knew." POPPYCOCK.

  Now, Joe says here in this thread that there are really actually only three names missing:

  My argument is not in the slightest weaker just because Matthew only left out three descendents, not four.

  Then, if you go back to Joe's site, he goes back to saying there are really four missing names, and another NEW name that he NEVER mentions before in the beginning of this thread pops up. From Joe's own site:

  David to
  the Exile

  1 David
  2 Solomon
  3 Roboam
  4 Abia
  5 Asa
  6 Josaphat
  7 Joram
  8 [Ahaziah]
  9 [Joash]
  10 [Amaziah]
  11 Ozias
  12 Joatham
  13 Achaz
  14 Ezekias
  15 Manasses
  16 Amon
  17 Josias
  18 [Jehoiakim] (Matthew omitted names in brackets.)

  As you can see, Joe's site is as confused as he is.

  So, it seems that Mr. Joe has no idea of what he in fact is talking about, and he himself is very confused over the point he is trying to make. He has his own "facts" bumbled between what he is posting here as proof and what his own web site articles are saying. In fact, he is saying two very different things, all the while changing his story of what his initial points were from the beginning of this thread.

  There is no use debating someone who is presenting nothing more than a big bunch of convoluted confusion.

  One fact is VERY clear, 3 were PURPOSELY removed exactly in the middle of the middle of 3 sets of generations...

  Read your Bible not Joe Awkward.
• 

  JosephAlward

  I've presented two arguments about the problems with Matthew's genealogy. One argument is the simplified one for the Jehovah's Witnesses on this site who typically have very little understanding of the Bible (no offense intended, ex-JWs). The more advanced argument is on my web site; it is somewhat different than the one I've presented in this forum. In that argument I show evidence that Matthew left out four names, not three. The latter argument offers more evidence, and is more powerful, but somewhat harder to follow.

  What Pom is doing is quite typical for inerrantists who cannot respond to a skeptical challenge. They introduce red herrings* in an attempt to shift the focus to small and irrelevant issues in the hope that this will relieve them of the obligation of resolving the contradiction.

  This forum knows full well that if Pom had a response to my challenge that would NOT result in a cascade of ridicule, he would be extremely quick to present it. It is clear that Pom cannot explain why Matthew is justified in leaving out the three kings in the his genealogy. All he has been able to offer in his defense is this:

  One fact is VERY clear, 3 were PURPOSELY removed exactly in the middle of the middle of 3 sets of generations

  Well, duh. That's exactly what I've suggested happened. Matthew may have deliberately removed those three names in order to make his readers think that there was something special about the man he was promoting as the long-awaited messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. If Matthew had not PURPOSELY removed those three kings, he would not have had a divine pattern to show his readers.

  Thus, Pom has offered no defense. He thinks that by pointing to what he perceives as inadequacies of my arguments--but which are really just irrelevant side issues--he doesn't have to explain why he thinks Matthew was justified in "purposefully" removing the three names. Who does Pom think he's fooling? There's only ONE person being fooled, in my opinion, and it's Pom.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  * A "red herring" is a smelly fish escapers often dragged across the trail to throw the tracking dogs off their scent.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  This thread and your site shot you in the foot. Anybody with fourth grade reading comprehension will see the obvious inconsistencies in your skeptical brain.

  You're just a bitter confused old man.

  G'nite.
• 

  Satanus

  Pom

  Who made more mistakes, joseph alward or god?
  Who is older, joseph alward or god?
  Who is more bitter, joseph alward or god?
  Who is more inconsistent, joseph alward or god?
• 

  CYLLON

  i got a question.
  the title said Mathew makes another error.

  What error.If you say he intended to leave them out for what ever reason,then how is he in error for doing just what he intended.Maybe a little slopy but an error?
• 

  JosephAlward

  One fact is VERY clear, 3 were PURPOSELY removed exactly in the middle of the middle of 3 sets of generations...

  I think Pom may be doing what got Matthew into so much trouble: he seems to be attaching mystical or divine significance to a number. In Matthew's case, it was the number "seven," in Pom's case, it seems to be "three."

  Pom evidently thinks that God inspired Matthew to erase "exactly" three names out of the middle of (exactly) three generations, because God was planting a divine message there that only faithful folks like Pom can read.

  If you can read the message from God, Pom, will you share it with us?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  OK. Now that we've exposed the Joe smoke screens, let's get down to business.

  >>If Matthew had not PURPOSELY removed those three kings, he would not have had a divine pattern to show his readers.<<

  Actually Joe, the removal of the three kingly generations condemned by God made the divine pattern that much more clear. So, these who are not recorded were indeed NOT recorded to maintain a pattern but NOT the pattern other "apologists" have claimed. Please note the FULL equilibrium on both sides of the three condemned kings. 777 on the Abraham side, 777 on the Jesus side.

  David is counted twice per Matthew 1:17, "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ."

  1 Abraham
  2 Isaac
  3 Jacob
  4 Judah
  5 Perez
  6 Hezron
  7 Ram

  1 Amminadab
  2 Nahshon
  3 Salmon
  4 Boaz
  5 Obed
  6 Jesse
  7 David

  1 David
  2 Solomon
  3 Rehoboam
  4 Abijah
  5 Asa
  6 Jehoshaphat
  7 Jehoram
  …………(missing Ahaziah)
  …………(missing Joash)
  …………(missing Amaziah)
  1 Uzziah
  2 Jotham
  3 Ahaz
  4 Hezekiah
  5 Manasseh
  6 Amon
  7 Josiah

  1 Jeconiah
  2 Sheiltiel
  3 Zerubbabel
  4 Abiud
  5 Eliakim
  6 Azor
  7 Zadok

  1 Akim
  2 Eliud
  3 Eleazer
  4 Matthan
  5 Jacob
  6 Joseph
  7 Jesus

  Just as there are two patterns of 777 on each side of the condemned kings, this dual pattern of 777 was prophesied back in Genesis in two ways by two men of Genesis who had the exact same name. One was a condemned man. One was a blessed man.

  Meet the two men named Lamech...

  The cursed Lamech:

  Gen 4:23-24
  23 Lamech said to his wives,

  "Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
  wives of Lamech, hear my words.
  I have killed a man for wounding me,
  a young man for injuring me.
  24 If Cain is avenged seven times,
  then Lamech seventy-seven times."

  777.

  The blessed Lamech, the father of Noah and a forefather of Christ:

  Gen 5:31
  31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.

  777.

  The pattern is true.