Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
The geneologies ARE to be taken literally. Would you posit that Jesus was only figuratively the Son of David? Or just symbolically Jewish? I believe the genologies are literal.
As for the "Zurubbabel question" I personally don't know, I haven't looked into it. My ignorance of a subject doesn't prove the Bible is in error. I'm far from knowing everything. If someone is basing their faith on my ability to answer all arguments their being foolish. To me its the same argument as Belshazzar, the Roman census, and the king named in Isaish 20:1. All these things in the past were thought to be slam dunk arguments against biblical inerrancy, and in time the Bible (as always) emerged vindicated....
Just talking as friends here Pel, I know its a lively discussion.  |
Jason. (coadie sent me a Photoshopped "thumbs up" - only the "thumb" wasn't the digit that was "up").
You will never completely answer the "Zerubbabel Question." There are some elements that can be added if we look at all the genealogies together. We can also learn something about how kinship and tribal identity was determined in ancient Israel.
But we can't solve the issue with a "LITERAL" accounting showing a "Father-to-son" relationship in each named "generation." Literalism dies here. And this is just one example ... one that COADIE! brought up.
Threaded Mode
