The following file contains a side-by-side listing of the genealogies of Jesus Christ. For purposes of space I have limited them to all begin with the generation following "David the King."
The PDF file might be a bit confusing - I used Microsoft's EXCEL to PDF conversion tool. Basically, page 1 goes on top of page 2; and page 3 and 4 go just to the right of those pages. Sorry about the uneven cut off.
I made this chart in the MS Office 2007 Excel spreadsheet format and saved another spreadsheet in the Open Document format. Unfortunately, neither format seems to be valid for upload with AFF's vBulletin format.
The statement by Henry Morris that Timmy had quoted in another thread follows:
Quote:
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
As you can see from the context, nothing is actually "clearly" declared by these genealogies other than the fact that Jesus is descended from David the King. How we get there is a winding road indeed.
And, there is simply no Biblical evidence whatsoever for the claim that Luke's genealogy follows Mary's ancestry while Matthew's follows Joseph's. For Morris to insert the "son-in-law" statement like he does is purely arbitrary. Why not say,
"Joseph is clearly the son of Heli (Luke 3:23, so this verse [Matthew 1:16] should be understood to mean "son-in-law of Joseph..." ???
Linear Mode
